« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

What the GOP Must Do: Finding Common Ground With the Occupiers

“The playing field does not need to be tipped back in favor of others. Just level it. An upright tower build on a slope will topple the moment the slope is laid flat.”

A friend of mine chastised me the other day. He said I was being too hostile toward the occupiers on Wall Street and elsewhere. He conceded that many of them are the ragtag group of hippies, hipsters, and communists I’ve said they were. But he also said that around the country there are also a lot of angry, unemployed people who just think the deck is stacked against them. They don’t want to punish the top 1%. They don’t want “free” anything. These people, he said, are reachable. And they are open to listen to anyone who is willing to take on Wall Street.  We shouldn’t let unwashed hippies be the only people they hear speaking to their concerns.

This touches on something I’ve written about before and think the time is right for a Republican candidate to take up the cause of populism against Wall Street.

Most of the common ground with most of these damn dirty communists is superficial. But let’s presume there are some people out there who are reachable. We on the right should not be as dismissive of what is happening in this movement the way the left, to their determine, wholly dismissed the tea party movement. There is, in fact, some shared ground even beyond the superficial ground I’ve already covered.

What’s the message?

First of all, the message is not punishment and retribution for success.

Most of us actually think the deck is stacked these days against entrepreneurs and that it was done so by bipartisan coalitions. Most of us do think the deck is stacked against the little guy. It is not, however, that the top 1% stacked the deck against the rest of us. It is that the government, in its expansion of the nanny-state, drove up costs to everyone and only the rich had the capital to overcome it. Only the wealthy and powerful can hire the lobbyists to write exemptions in big new taxes and regulations and the army of lawyers and accountants to comply with them.  Only the big guys can get a seat at the table where Washington hands out loans and grants and bailouts to its friends in Big Business and Big Labor.

The rich have kept getting richer and it is harder to break into the top ranks of salary. But that has very little to do with the rich blocking people from getting there. It has pretty much everything with the government. And that is the fundamental difference between the occupiers and the tea party movement.

Both are opposed to TARP. Both are opposed to bailouts. But the rabid occupiers want more government and the tea party wants less government. The occupiers think only the government can solve the problem and the tae party thinks a free market can solve the problem.

The occupiers think the government should pick the winners and losers and the tea party thinks the free market can.

“But wait,” they say, “the market is not free.” And they are right. But the solution should be to free up the market, not shackle it or nationalize it.

Back in 2009, I asked when the people would revolt. The left went nuts, accusing me of fomenting the very violence they are now fomenting. But this is precisely where I saw us heading. The left has whipped people into a sentiment against Wall Street and bankers and the rich, but as I pointed out then and still maintain, it is the politicians who are to blame. People are reacting now, as I predicted they would, to the tyranny of small things.

The bankers on Wall Street have the same number of votes the rest of us have. But it is the politicians, not the banks, who have made the playing field unlevel. And the banks and their derivatives and new fees, etc. are all in response to the playing field being unleveled.

What has happened is government has made it more and more difficult for anyone to make a profit. So the financial industry got more and more creative in trying to make a profit. The house of cards eventually came tumbling down. But it never would have happened, but for the government — from Fannie to Freddie to the Community Redevelopment Act and on and on and on.

Only those with money could stay ahead. To be sure, some of them were crooked bastards who should go to jail along with some politicians. But not all of them or even most of them. More so, many on the left right now ignore the fact that these guys are bipartisan in their giving, if not slightly left, and the Obama Administration has done nothing about them. In fact, many of this administration’s legal reforms have actually benefited the biggest financial service firms like Goldman Sachs.

The point to all of this is that a Republican candidate can run against Wall Street, though probably not Mitt Romney. A Republican can run on a very simple message — in this country we should all be able to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, but government and big business have gotten in the way.

Government added more and more regulations and complications all the way down to the local level. Big business then used its money to go hire lobbyists to go to Washington to carve out loopholes to benefit themselves. The rest of us are unable to compete.

The point is not that we now need to punish those big businesses. The point is that we need to re-level the playing field and make it a fair competition between entrepreneur and corporation again. We need big business to stop living off the taxpayer dole.  We need a new age of corporate welfare reform like the welfare reform of the 1990s.

So what should we do?

First, we need to blow up the tax code. The tax code is the source of much of the problems. It has become a costly burden for individuals to try to stay in compliance with the tax code. People should not need an army of accountants just to avoid the IRS nor should they need an army of lobbyists to secure their fair treatment from the tax code.

Second, we need to get rid of a lot of regulations on small businesses. Big businesses have the budgets to do compliance. Small businesses do not. Small businesses can never become big businesses when the small businesses must spend money on compliance instead of business.

Third, we need to get rid of patents for software and process. When big businesses can patent processes that should otherwise be common sense, small businesses can never enter the market. Likewise, more and more we are seeing patent trolls abuse the patent process by hoarding patents on processes and software that shut out innovation by entrepreneurs. Software can be handled with copyright. Processes should not be patentable.

Fourth, state and local governments need to get in on the act. For as many federal regulations as businesses have to comply with, states and local governments are the same. It is notoriously impossible in some parts of the country to run a noninvasive business from a home. Even kids cannot start lemonade stands in some parts of the country without a business permit.

The business permitting racket at the local and state level needs to be shut down. Sole proprietors should not need business permits and the extra compliance that comes from applying for a business permit. People should be permitted to run noninvasive businesses from their homes without zoning waivers and permits and inspections and extra fees.

We should make it easier and easier for people to go into business for themselves without the headache of government regulatory and tax compliance.

Many of the occupiers have traded in greed for envy and jealousy. They want to punish the big financial institutions. But that is unnecessary.

The playing field has been tilted toward the big businesses because they are the only ones who had the capital to stay ahead of government regulations and new government burdens, and the influence to bend new laws in their direction. The playing field does not need to be tipped back in favor of others. Just level it. An upright tower build on a slope will topple the moment the slope is laid flat.

Life is not fair. But if all men are created equal, conservatives should not shy away from making the creation point a level field for everyone. Abraham Lincoln said that in this country, unlike any other on earth, “every man can make himself.” As government grows and creeps into every aspect of our lives, that is less and less true except of those who have the means to pay off government and cover the increasing costs of doing business.

Instead of punishing those people, we should lower the bar to entry for everyone else.

COMMENTS

  • tailfins1959

    I say don’t take them too seriously. Those who do (either for or against) will have egg on their face. Their behavior illustrates they are not serious.

  • Aaron Gardner

    nt

  • Crash71234

    “Second, we need to get rid of a lot of regulations on small businesses. Big businesses have the budgets to do compliance.”

    Don’t those big business budgets come at the expense of higher costs on good and services from me?

  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    1) I agree with most of what you say about the tax code, a simple code with no deductions for anything (ie free market) and lower rates would be great.

    2) On local regulations, some are really bad, but as someone who is married a health inspector, let us say that some are needed, as the stories I hear (and these are from businesses that know the inspector is coming, ie not a surprise visit) would horrify even the most anti-regulation of us (I used to make fun of her job until I started to hear the stories).

    3) Do not forget “free-trade”. We need a level financial playing field in all trade agreements (this means floating currencies, equal property/business ownership rights, etc, not the fair trade labor and environmental stuff of the left).

  • http://www.savejersey.com mattdeluca

    Erick’s treatise here is pretty much spot on – goes back to the founding ideas of the Tea Party. Important to remember many TP/#dontgo people were vehemently anti-TARP.

  • TheHUTMan

    I agree with all of these, and think we also need a #5 in there: legal reform.

    Our legal system is woefully tilted to the lawyers and big pockets. How can a little guy feel competitive when lawsuits around every corner. I know of people who didn’t start a business exactly due to this fear of getting sued and being run right back out of business. There are so many laws on the books that just about anything seems like it can be interpreted one way or another … it just depends on how good a lawyer you have.

    Even playing field is what we need! If I go to McDonalds, I should get the same service as anyone else going to the same place. Just because your a CEO at a big corporation or a big whoo hoo Hollywood type doesn’t mean your burger is any better or different. A lot of what the OWS types complain about is fairness … so long as we agree it’s about being FAIR and not, as you say, envy or jealousy, I think we can make some progress. We need to be fair in how we treat everyone. If we start making people into special cases, we end up where we are now with our overwrought legal situations.

    Government tries to act far by making more laws to promote their idea of fairness; but in the end fairness without liberty does us no good at all.

  • http://whattoreadtoday.blogspot.com/ Paula

    I’ve had some online discussions with these #occupycleveland types and have pointed out that they are protesting in the shadow of Sherwin-Williams, where my husband works. . Last year the company paid $200 million in income taxes – nearly 1/3 of their income. That’s $30 million more than in 2009.

    This company represents 3800 jobs in Cleveland and thousands more across the country. Plus they hire 700 college grads every year and a boatload of paid summer interns.

    We need to make the case that those corporations that are “not paying their fair share” (see GE) are the exception, not the rule. Demonizing every corporation in the country is simply dishonest.

    Furthermore, they must realize that at some point, these companies will decide the tax burden is too high and they will move their operations overseas or shut down completely. What will happen to the “marginalized” they are so concerned about when all those jobs disappear?

    This is an area of common ground, I think.

  • http://www.itsaboutliberty.com IronDioPriest

    … who was willing to “take up the cause of populism against Wall Street.” It was someone who had faced the same giants before, in the form of oil companies colluding with government. Someone who knew how to attack a corrupt power structure by appealing to the people.

    But we allowed the Left to define her; destroy her; and then we shamefully abandoned her.

    Those remaining are either in league with the status quo, have little shot at the nomination, or haven’t the guts to say what needs saying and then follow through with what needs doing.

  • angryguy77

    But the ones Eric thinks we should reach out to will never understand conservatism. I don’t care what age group is, or what background a person has, if they are a part of this protest, they are part of the problem.

    You cannot be an average upset joe and go along with these dirty hippies. Anyone who leans toward the free market would not allow themselves to be associated with this group. Anyone with half a brain would not stand side by side with a hippie shouting “down with capitalism”.

    If these people that Erick talks about exist, they already have a home, it’s called the Tea Party. If they were too ignorant or lazy to figure out what the TP is all about, they definitely won’t listen to a conservative now.

    We don’t need to add these people into our movement, all they will do is dilute the message and inject RINOism into the party.

  • angryguy77

    would be a Godsend btw.

  • Ausonius

    Where are the ads, where are the speeches, where are the press conferences, in which Republicans show how Democrats are in bed with George Soros, Bill Gates, General Electric, and dozens of other CEO’s ?

    Where are the ads about the 70 millionaires and billionaires gathered by Soros to push Corporate Fascism/Socialism onto America by influencing the elections in 2006 and 2008?

    Their money won for the Democrats, who have brought us unemployment, decay, and near depression.

    Pelosi’s financial shenanigans, Schumer’s, Frank’s, and Dodd’s roles in our financial scandal need to be exposed.

    It is time to make Dems worry about class warfare!

  • tailfins1959

    If you’re going to visit a tourist destination with expensive lodging, wouldn’t it make sense to take advantage of the food, electrical connections and sanitation provided at the Occupy venues? That would make you one of the “occupiers”. What do you think of “Occupy Epcot Center”?

    How about selling “Down With Capitalism” t-shirts at these venues for only $19.95 ?

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    #OccupyYellowstone will get cranking any day now. Where else would you find The Banksters during a bear market?

  • YnotNOW

    I agree with the intent and substance of what Eric proposes here, and hope that there are SOME hangers-on that are open to rational persuasion.

    Others I have less optimistic outlook for – that are too bent on the differences between OWS and TEA party principles. As illustrated by where they protest. Tea Partiers gathered at State Capitals and at town halls to protest to the government. Because we see government as the problem (and the solution is to unshackle the free market). OWS protestors gather by businesses, because they see corporations as the problem (and therefore government as the solution).

    These illustrate the fundamental difference in outlook of the two groups. OWS is largely envious of those who have success. Their principle is equality (of outcomes). TEA Partiers would rather emulate success than envy the successful. Their principle is freedom.

    There may be some open to argument, but that is a wide gap to bridge.

  • i8bugs

    just promising when we get in office we will enforce SEC regulations and control market manipulation, naked shorting and so on. That would take care of much of the problem.

  • BA Cyclone

    I’m not always able to read it, but if you see this and haven’t yet signed up for Ben Domenech’s Transom daily email, by all means do so!

    Sure there are professional protestors and hippie wannabes and marxists in these poopfests, but there are also legitimate teaching moments for people that could be steered to our side of the argument with merely a few seconds of personal conversation. Maybe they have never considered a conservative argument, but they might agree with it more than they ever would think.

    The Thursday Transom had a very lengthy argument and some really interesting anecdotes on this very topic. You can go down and expect to film some nutty marxists, but what you might find are some people frustrated with the situation just like Tea Party protesters are, but they simply are mis-educated on what the real solutions might be…or just whom is actually proposing the real solutions to those problems. (They’ll never find them in 99% of Democrats)

  • BA Cyclone

    I’m not always able to read it, but if you see this and haven’t yet signed up for Ben Domenech’s Transom daily email, by all means do so!

    Sure there are professional protestors and hippie wannabes and marxists in these poopfests, but there are also legitimate teaching moments for people that could be steered to our side of the argument with merely a few seconds of personal conversation. Maybe they have never considered a conservative argument, but they might agree with it more than they ever would think.

    The Thursday Transom had a very lengthy argument and some really interesting anecdotes on this very topic. You can go down and expect to film some nutty marxists, but what you might find are some people frustrated with the situation just like Tea Party protesters are, but they simply are mis-educated on what the real solutions might be…or just whom is actually proposing the real solutions to those problems. (They’ll never find them in 99% of Democrats)

  • toothpick

    Erick, what you propose is a good, conservative set of reforms. It’s not at all clear that the Occupy Whatever crowd has enough common sense to understand that. So while I agree with your proposals, I’m not sure how this post lives up to its title – common ground with the occupiers.

  • dajeeps

    Wrote about this a couple weeks ago. After conversations with some people @ the Tenth Amendment Center who went out there, tried to talk to some of these people and were pushed out by the leftists in the group, however, I dropped it. Perhaps we would be better off to do what makes us happy and hope it subdues the mob in the process, without jumping on the bandwagon too heavily. I think what Newt said at the debate is probably the right balance to take in taking on Wall St. We don’t want the left to get the wrong idea.

  • http://whattoreadtoday.blogspot.com/ Paula

    nt

  • wheelworker

    I come here as a member of the left mostly to try to understand the thinking of the right. Also, I teach government, and I try to be fair and give the right’s arguments in a relatively balanced fashion. More balanced, say, than describing OWS members as “unwashed hippies” and “damn dirty communists.”

    That said, I will respond to Erick’s effort to seek common ground with OWS protestors, of which I am a member.

    To your points:

    1. I agree that the tax code is full of problems. But we believe that those who have received the most from society owe the most in return. So we feel that a more progressive tax code is necessary. It is also justifiable in my view to use tax incentives and penalties to encourage or discourage aspects of society. For example, tax credits for renewable energy and tax penalties for cigarettes. Many of the worst abuses in the tax code come from the wealthy and powerful carving out benefits that have nothing to do an attempt to create a better society but rather to simply protect their own wealth. Public financing of campaigns would largely take care of this issue.

    2. I agree completely that there are too many regulations on small business. Furthermore, I agree that forcing small businesses to provide health insurance is problematic at best. I think all regulations on small business must pass a basic test: do they legitimately serve the public interest? Many clearly do not. Others, like basic environmental and health protections, do. One of the reasons I strongly support single-payer health care is the huge advantage that would be for small businesses. No longer would they ever have to worry about health care premiums.

    3. I agree completely without any caveats. But I think the same logic applies to Net Neutrality as well, which I presume most of you don’t support.

    4. Again, I agree. But I would add that a vibrant public sector is the best friend of a healthy private sector. Take for instance the Riverwalk in San Antonio. Built by the WPA it is a tourist attraction that created the infrastructure for a wide variety of successful businesses. Again and again “internal improvements” paid for by the public sector become a blessing for the private sector. Not only that, but they provide needed employment during downward turns in the business cycle. Why has the right become so adamantly opposed to these sorts of projects?

    From my perspective, it is hard to understand why Republicans don’t try to work harder with Obama to get basic economic plans through that both sides have supported in the past. Other than pure partisan maneuvering for temporary political advantage, I see no justification.

  • aesthete

    There are some good regulations out there, but the trick is sussing out the good from the bad. Roland Coase famously made a living presenting areas where unassigned property rights, rather than insufficient regulations, were the root problem, and many regulations zip right past this problem and don’t truly resolve the underlying problems. As you note, many of the things that businesses do to prepare for health inspections are pretty gross — but in some cases, properly-assigned property rights would make it so that these gross standards or externalities wouldn’t be tolerated by the companies themselves. Which is better: a hasty clean-up in preparation for a health inspection (followed by a return to yuckiness), or a status quo where costs are internalized and thus maintenance is a regular fixture, rather than something done to pass an inspection?

    Some regulations are appropriate when transaction costs are too high, and that certainly can be the case at times. Nevertheless, the flexible, self-perpetuating, self-enforcing and stable nature of property rights cannot be overestimated, IMO, and we should actively be on the lookout for how we can make property rights work in those situations where regulation is being touted as the only solution.

  • tailfins1959

    When you let tax favors accumulate over time, it becomes a labyrinth that contradicts even itself. The main mission of a business, or a person for that matter should not be to do government paperwork. There’s no reason members of a free society should spend more than 30 minutes per year administering their taxes.

  • funwithknives

    for your attempts. Broad Brushing any one topic or singled-out group Never has a positive outcome.
    But in this day and age of relativism and “it’s My Truth and there fore it is sufficient” types of thought, can you, I or anyone turn the path of this insane simplemindedness? Progressives have such a large head start and if this lazy method of problem solving {i. e., simplistic and infantile} can feasibly show some results, {of a sort}where do we have to go ,but down?? What Progressives label *Leaders*, are looked up to by these self-same mental regressives , and take their cues from them.
    Call this a rant if you wish, but in my humble estimation this is Gasoline, waiting for a match. Watch out for The Wave ,Paula, and I’m quite sure you know of what I speak.
    Are we too far along to change this nuttiness? How long did it take to get us to this point and then witness the {alarming} speed ,currently.
    Step lively and keep ‘em coming. FWK, S/E Michigan. {Tigers in Seven!}

  • snowshooze

    But Erick, this is good.
    If those people actually understood where the root of the problem lies…
    They WOULD be at the White House.

  • funwithknives

    What HE SAID, TIMES GOOGLE-PLEX!!
    {Sorry for all the caps, but this topic is a real sore point with me.}
    When is the 21st century going to smack Reince and Friends square in the rear and shock them into using what is handed to them? Is simple video editing and a script beyond your abilities?
    ” SHOW US SUMTHIN”!!

  • aesthete

    1) In a free market system, it would be fair to say that those who are “self-made” millionaires have already done something of proportionate value for society to be rewarded with his wealth: either he or his employers are creating goods and services for use, and will rise or fall based on the amount that the consumer values their product. Steve Jobs may have been one of the wealthiest men in the world prior to his death, but we too are much wealthier with the innovations provided by Apple — innovations that owe no small debt to Jobs’ vision, leadership and ability to assemble a team that could create his vision in marketable and affordable form. Even if you are a staunch Windows user, you’ve benefited from these advances in many ways. Whether he or we ultimately benefited more depends on consumer surplus, but it’s certain that he gave at least as good as he got. Those “born into money” did not necessarily provide such value to society, but society also had nothing to do with their wealth: that was the result of their having been fortunate enough to have been born to wealthy parents, which is a random factor which society has nothing to do with.

    2) You’d have to define the “public interest” first — no small matter, judging by the debates within the left on that topic, to say nothing of the debate within the broader American public.

    4) Maybe, but you’re forgetting opportunity costs. Whether a public works project is truly successful depends on factors such as public good status, positive externalities, and the ability of a given bureaucracy. If you roll hard sixes on all those things, then yes — certain project can be useful and sustainable. Generally speaking, the armed forces, certain types of infrastructure, and some public spending on science falls under this category. After that, it gets fuzzy. Regarding employment during business downturns, that’s a pretty hotly-debated point in the world of economics, since opportunity costs and poor investment choices on government’s part plague such ventures, even in bad times.

    Your last paragraph makes no sense: neither Obama nor the Republicans are arguing in good faith, and from a game theory point of view, it makes little sense for either side to start operating in good faith. I’m OK with that, since expansive policies supported by both sides tend to be rife with rent-seeking monied interests.

  • Jewels

    starts to take these nuts seriously, THEN the media will publish the crapping on the car photos.

  • dajeeps

    There aren’t many of us who believe that there should be no rules, and there shouldn’t be someone regulating certain aspects of industry. Part of the problem though, and one of the biggest complaints I’ve heard coming out of OWS, is that the regulatory apparatus is a political body and serves politics first with public welfare as a secondary concern. A perfect case in point is the makings of the housing and financial crises, and how we’ve all been ripped off blind by it. It’s been a problem ever since time began, and is one of the main reasons for our declaration of independence from Britain, and for the original enumerated powers in our constitution. Give unlimited power to government under the guise of safety and it will be abused to the detriment of society as a whole.

    I think the real solution to the problem is adherence to the10th amendment and not have one-size-fits-all dictates coming out of Washington DC that when faulty adversely affects the entire country. And it is so much more difficult for crony capitalism to get a foothold over the entire country when there are so many governors and state legislators to bribe. It also has a lot of mileage in debates about spending, taxation, and the role of government in society when each state is responsible for their own geographical area and their own people. It is just unnecessary for the Federal government to be doing all the stuff it’s doing. There is really one one reason it does it – power, money, and influence for the politicians, not for you and me.

  • angryguy77

    1. The government shouldn’t be using the tax code as a way to control society. Using it as a way to “steer” someone into behaving the way they want them to as in the case of smoking or any other legal action. I don’t believe that is the function our founders envisioned for the government they formed.
    The wealthy lobby for deductions because the government forces them to do so. As we have seen, the government has expanded exponentially over the last century causing it to demand more and more money to operate. The solution to this is to return the government back to its original mission, and to have it stop punishing success.
    Many wealthy people earned it and do spread their wealth around by creating jobs and investing in other businesses. Society didn’t give them their wealth, they earned it through hard work and good ideas. Our free market allowed them to prosper, not the poor guy down the street.

    2. Single payer system doesn’t work-period. It causes costs to rise and rationing of care. There are numerous examples of this throughout Europe. A prime example is the Nice Dept in the UK.
    There is a need for some regulations, but when they reach the point where they start smothering business and obstructing prosperity, there needs to be reform. One of the best ways to avoid this is to allow the states do the regulating. A return to the 10th amendment would solve this problem in an instant.

  • renl57

    Wouldn’t it be cool if Tea Partiers who are furious about the bailouts of giant corporations, met with OWS who are furious about the bailouts of giant corporations?

    They would be surprised to find they’re angry about the same problem.

    They could argue about whether we need more government or less government to fix it. And that would be a debate I would love to watch.

  • earlgrey

    in 2008 She is 26. She indicated she wouldn’t vote for him again.

    “How good can he be if he needs so much Wall Street money?” adding “We’re not stupid.”

  • renl57

    Erick,
    I liked your diary, and I agree that there is an underlying populist theme here to which both the OWS and the Tea Party can be sympathetic.

    But let’s also remember how we got into the current mess: It was when Lehman Brothers folded, and we started to hear that all these banks and financial institutions and brokerage houses were Too Big To Fail ™.

    Too Big To Fail means that there are private corporations whose failure is deemed to be so disastrous to the U.S. economic system that the Government must give them a guarantee of financial support.

    In engineering, we call that a “single point of failure”–a component whose failure will bring down the whole system. And when designing reliable systems, we try not to have those; we have backups and so forth.

    This is one of the few times I agree with what the left-wing economist Robert Reich said: “If you’re Too Big To Fail, then you’re too big to exist.”

    Either we shouldn’t have bailed out all these financial institutions at all (and lived with the consequences), or else we should have made breaking up those financial institutions a prequisite for a bailout. Because as things stand now, those bailed out firms are still Too Big To Fail ™–with an implicit government guarantee of more bailouts if need be.

    One more point: The unemployment rate among the new college graduates (Class of 2011) is 11.2%. Most of those may end up unable to pay off their student loans and face bankruptcy. That’s not a good way to start out in life.

    We need a jobs plan that can reduce youth unemployment.

  • Ausonius

    Many of my mini-essays here – too many probably! – deal with the need to inform the Great Unwashed that the Dems are dancing on our noses by preaching class warfare and even class hatred, both salted with the hatred of Jews and Christianity, while at the same time proclaiming “Peace, Love, and Dope” with propaganda financed with money from…liberal Jews, Catholics, and the guilt-ridden CEO’s mentioned above!

    The contradictions in all of this is self-satirical! It is practically impossible to mock it.

    As W.C. Fields would say: “It boggles science!” :)

  • Tbone

    would take years of environmental studies and 10 times more in legal fees than the it took to build the Riverwalk flood control project in the first place. Herein lies the problem.

  • Tbone

    It doesn’t say that the hippies, commies and scumbuckets are reachable, it says that they have some complaints that resonate with people who are reachable. That is who the Republicans should be talking to.

  • Kyle-MI

    is before the failure, hopefully during the design process. If there is a design flaw, and it is in the process of failing, then you do everything in your power to prevent the failure until it can be fixed, both short-term and long-term. Once the thing has been stabilized, then you address the design flaw.

    In other words, we did the right thing with TARP. It was ugly but it stabilized the problem short-term. Now we can take steps to address the long term problem of too-big-to-fail.

  • runner12

    While I appreciate Erick’s intent, it must be pointed out that philosophy and what one views as the solution matters.

    For example, we may both despise the bank bailouts but they for very different reasons. As Erick stated OWS blames the rich and successful, the Tea Party has identified the real culprit which is Big Government.

    The OWS crowd has no problem with government being involved in controlling others’ lives if it meets their socialist goals. The Tea Party recognizes that an all powerful centralized government is a threat to the Republic.

    I have not heard one person interviewd from OWS who I thought was not a rabid socialist. The gap between socialism and a republican form of government is vast and wide. Socialists are not easily converted.

    I have to admit, it is a bit alarming to me to hear people say that we “may have common ground” with these people. There may be some misguided fools down there, but the vast majority know exactly who is backing them and what those people stand for.

    We must learn from history. The Tea Party bases its belief system off of the principles and ideals that founded this great nation. The OWS crowd expresses the hatred and class warfare espoused during the French Revolution.

    Both philosophies resulted in revolutions. Both had vastly differsnt outcomes. Why? Because the philosophy of the revolutionaries matters.

  • ohiohistorian

    Seems to me that would be the only fusion between the Tea Party and OWS. And I don’t think it can happen productively. Seems to me it is a lot like Tom Clancy’s book, The Teeth of the Tiger. Thanks, but no thanks.

  • ohiohistorian

    I don’t follow, Erick. You are saying that the steam engine (a process for converting steam to shaft energy), Xerography, and gene splicing should not be patentable? All three teach substantial know-how. An equipment patent is very easy to break.

  • acat

    From “The Seventy Maxims of Maximally Effective Mercenaries”, Schlock Mercenary, Howard Tayler* author.

    Mew

    Not that it matters a hill of beans politically, but Howard’s one of those Mormons.

  • anjinconsulting

    The idea is definitely worth considering. You know it NEVER turns out well when one group finds out that their hopes and dreams were fed and nourished on lies and manipulation.

    The root cause, common in the majority of the complaints I have heard to date is that the very government they have declared as the means to end their woes is the same government that led them into the trap they are in.

    I realize that rational and logical debate is work, but my God; why can?t some conservative group or blogger just use some fundamental Socratic teaching skills with these people to lead them to the logical result, and then disseminate that on the web? An argument for one tax rate for every person, regardless of economic status would be a delicious starter.

    I can sympathize with some of the folks in these protests to an extent. Indeed, some of them are undoubtedly upright citizens who have suffered and still are suffering at the pointed end of the stupid stick wielded by Captain Zero and his minions. But let it be said as well that the unemployed with college degrees in less than useless disciplines handed out by universities who were in the business of capitalizing on the government student loan programs using false pretenses of higher education and better paying jobs have no one to blame but themselves.

    Any of the remaining clowns who think that they should get their camping supplies and munchies for free ought to be asked to donate their sleeping bags and munchies to the others who don?t have any. And the next time that Jabba the Hut , Robespierre Barr, or some stupid rapper in a $350 shirt with $5000 of bling on his torso suggest confiscating the wealth of the rich; well maybe someone could meekly ask them point blank and on their iphone camera when they will be donating all of their “excessive wealth” to the local cause to support their continued occupation.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    I would say get rid of all onerous and excessive regulation, and it might help out small business or it might not, but getting rid of it is a good unto itself.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    I think some trade practices might deserve retaliation, like for instance out right theft of intellectual copyrights, or exporting tainted and harmful product.

    However, if a nation wants to give us cheap goods by hurting their own people with a devalued currency, then how are we worse off?

    Manufacturing jobs are a tricky thing to chase. A nation with a devalued currency will only take production away if they already have a comparative advantage, and if they do, then even normalizing the currency won’t help much, but it will cause an increase in everyone’s prices.

    When a nation has a comparative advantage in textiles and cheap consumer goods, then it is difficult for a nation like the USA to compete with them, no matter what the currency situation is. And it is made much harder by taxes, regulations, and restrictions on hiring.

    Besides, we ought not even want to be producing those kind of goods, If your nation has a comparative advantage in those goods, that means you are a poor nation.

  • runner12

    I could care less who said it, I like the phrase and think it applies perfectly in this situation.

  • acat

    I mean, there’s a clear process to it.

    Come up with something to say.
    Mix in some humor.
    Make sure not to offend the mods.
    Remember to use the Reply To This button.
    Click.

    Seriously, there’s already a mechanism for protecting processes, it’s called “trade secrets”. The formula for Pepsi-Cola, for instance, is a trade secret, just like the Coloniel’s herbs and spices.

    Then there’s copyright, which is actually closer to what I should use for these posts .. and Moe and Erick and DeVine Gamecock use for their professional writing.

    The point being that the patent for the steam engine covers one specific approach to a problem, not infringe on the problem itself.

    Mew

  • ohiohistorian

    Good luck on protecting ANYTHING with “trade secrets”. Dow tried that in China. The guy down the street called their plant and asked for help starting up his knock-off before theirs was built.

    A copyright might work. How about if I take the writing and change one word? Does that obviate the copyright? That is what you are doing if you only allow an equipment patent.

  • perry4prez

    I like all of Erick’s policy positions but the Occupy Wall Street kids are never going to get behind cutting regulations and taxes. They openly say they want MORE regulation on business and MORE taxes. (That is the ones who can tell us what they actually want. Most of them cannot even manage that because they are there for the Party atmosphere. This is in contrast to the Tea Party which has been very open about stating what we want – LESS government, LESS regulation, LESS taxes MORE businesses. This sounds to me like exactly what the Occupy Wall Streeters DON’T WANT. I say let them have their version of the 1968 Dummycrat Convention, that will make it much easier for the GOP to campaign as the law and order party in November.

  • acat

    Who forced Dow to build in China? Oh wait, *they did that on their own*.

    Seriously, if they did even basic research, they’d know that China doesn’t have nearly the same concept of intellectual property rights that the U.S. has, and that maybe they shouldn’t have tried it.

    That Dow have a problem with Chinese culture does not justify warping U.S. law. That’s nearly as silly as U.S. courts issuing findings based on European statutes.

    Mew

  • http://whattoreadtoday.blogspot.com/ Paula

    I live in Ohio, home of “lie, fear-monger, and repeal.” If people are told by the union and via TV commercial that Gov. Kasich is ending collective bargaining, that is truth for them, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

    My son took classes his senior year at the University of Akron. In his freshman English class they watched Sponge Bob and Crash and learned what a verb and an adverb were. When they did peer reviews, most of the kids could not string together two coherent sentences. Many (most) of these kids have been taught from a young age to sit still and be quiet and never think for themselves. It must be like shooting fish in a barrel for these liberal propagandist professors.

    I will say, that I take encouragement from the fact that there are an estimated 2 million homeschoolers (likely many more). We started around 1996-ish,a time when homeschooling experienced a huge growth spurt due to laws being liberalized and the availability of quality curriculum. Those kids are now college age and have been taught from a young age to question everything they hear and to back up their beliefs with facts. They’ve grown up having people question their education choice and being a little wary of the government (not to mention being generally decent, patriotic, law-abiding citizens) (with studies to back that up).

    I was talking to my son last night (who started public school last year as a junior). We were watching some of the video of those kids on Wall Street. I told him he and other kids like him (not just homeschoolers) are all that will stand between our Republic an America that looks like Zucotti Park.

  • http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

    And thank you.

  • Tbone

    unless you can afford a hoard of attorneys. As such, they are only useful to those corporations that can.

  • dajeeps

    It is difficult to compete with a slave state like China, even under the best of circumstances. If we do create as close to the best of circumstances here as we can get, we do have one advantage of that the Chinese will never have: we wouldn’t have the stability problems China does. Their fortunes won’t last forever because of what they are; they will fail.

  • snowshooze

    Reading Breitbart, I believe there is a site where these peole are talking.
    If anyone knows what it is, please pass it along.
    I feel it is my duty to spend a bit of time on their site trying to put the reality of the situation to them as Erick has mentioned.
    Any help in identifying their mode of communications would be a great help.
    Thanks,
    Mark

  • snowshooze

    http://occupywallst.org/
    Ok kids.. our work is cut out for us.

  • snowshooze

    And thanks for the reply.
    Mark

  • dio55

    that is just about the best analysis of this situation I have read . I too am worried that this can escalate. one thought though Alinsky tactics work both ways and somtimes i get tired always taking the high road . I remember after 911 Bush sr saying” the world is a nasty place and national security can be a messy buisness somtimes you need to wade into the sewer to get the rats” Well progressives are the biggest rats that ever lived.

  • skorrent1

    And how tall is the replacement building now??

  • skorrent1

    Sounds like the natural consequence of bankruptcy to me, provided the government doesn’t cherry-pick. You’re right that the “too big to fail” organizations still exist and are as shakey as ever, including, esp., Fannie, Freddy and the Fed.

  • lastgopinillinois

    1. The tax code should not be used as a social engineering tool as you suggest. The tax code should be used to promote growth and the creation of wealth in the private sector.

    2. Regulations on business should not be considered to serve the public interest. Regulations should be used to PROTECT the nations public from harm, such as death from dangerous elements, nationwide economic disaster, etc. Let the people decide what is in their own interest otherwise.
    Single payer healthcare is too expensive, restrictive and will not fit into our free-market, capitalist system. The way to go would be to break the healthcare insurance monopolies allowing a broader competitive market amongst the states to reduce cost and give more freedom of choice.

    3. No to Net neutrality. Free markets rule.

    4. I disagree that a vibrant public sector is any freind of the private sector. We need to seriously shrink the public sector and GROW the private sector. More private sector growth means more jobs, more revenue, more prosperity overall. I disagree with FDR’s WPA and his “New Deal”, 0bamas “stimulus’s” and I disagree that Federal funds should be used for internal State projects unless the entire nation benefits economically from the project (such as interstate hiways, military installations or dams, etc.

    I dont see what is going on in congress over the “jobs” bills as partisan maneuvering at this point. 0bamas so-called “jobs” bill is mostly a TAX bill with short-term jobs (for democrat supporters) and stimulus. Not a single thing in his bill is good for the COUNTRY.
    The Republicans Jobs bill, however would be very effective at creating jobs for EVERYONE if the entire package passed and was signed into law.

  • bonnman

    And I’d agree the gap is too wide to bridge. I’m kind of surprised so many conservatives here think OWS is worth trying to latch on to. Their entire premise is that the wealthy and successful have rigged the system for their favor at the expense of the masses.

  • lastgopinillinois

    But the OWS crowd is angry at the wrong people.

    There have been a multitude of news articles on the internet which have ultimately led to this same discussion about who is to blame for the financial meltdown.
    The liberals believe that greedy fat cats on Wall street are SOLELY to blame.

    Every time I read a comment from someone who believes that, I post a reply to their comment telling how it all started with Clintons re-write of the CRA and how it became a complete takeover of the community banking system and how it all snowballed from there, finally leading to the crash of ’08.

    The smart ones who read my reply, look it up and read about it themselves and DO NOT respond back to my comment.

    So, to put it all in perspective, it is Government regulations that really caused this mess.
    How about this new $5 monthly charge on credit cards some banks just started charging. Same thing. Its not greedy bankers. They are just trying to recoup their losses from Dick#$@&Durbins 0.23 cent regulation that just went into effect.
    Now, liberals? does the Dodd/Frank Deform bill scare you yet ? How about 0bamacare ?

  • http://theheartlander.wordpress.com/ heartlander

    …for the best, clearest explanation of this matter I think I’ve seen. I’ve bookmarked this, and am getting ready to forward it to all my email contacts. You’ve done a real service here.

  • haumea

    Erick may be correct about reaching out to those he describes in the first paragraph, but I doubt there are many of them among the occupiers, who judging from the #owslist dump largely divide into liberals, socialists and anarchists, with the strategic aim of pushing the liberals hard left.

  • westbrook348

    This is what independents and libertarians have been saying for YEARS. I am glad you are trying to find common ground w/ the independents and the people who have lost complete faith in politics/government. There are a lot of lost young people out there at OWS, but not all of them are stupid or selfish. There are legitimate concerns some of the protesters raise, and they are the same concerns that the Tea Partiers had; just the understanding of the situation and the proposed solutions are different, as you stated.

    The deck truly has been stacked against the average American who isn’t rich enough to overcome government regulations and taxes. Sure there are too many people on welfare and looking for more handouts, but much of it isn’t peoples’ fault: for instance, w/ the way medical care costs and insurance premiums have gone up lately, I totally understand why people are looking to government for medicaid and other solutions.

    Some Americans see how easy it is for other Americans to make money, get ahead, and stay ahead, and they ARE jealous. Rightly so, in my opinion. Some on Wall Street worked hard for their fortunes, but many are basically gambling with others’ money, taking advantage of Fed policy and easy money to make fortunes that are taxed lower than average income. It wouldn’t be so bad if the investors who made bad bets lost money. But only the average person who bets wrong gets screwed: the rich and the politically connected on Wall Street get bailouts. The CEOs drive companies into bankrupty and then get millions of dollars for it. Of course Americans are furious.

    You are so right that the anger needs to be directed against government. Government enables it. But when the rich lobby for a good deal that distorts the market in their favor, they are just as much at fault. Of course, their competitors are also lobbying, but the whole process is sick. And the voters who have enabled this by electing corrupt big government morons deserve the real blame. Not just Democrats, either, though obviously they have been the worst perpetrators.

    You are correct, Erick, that the focus needs to be on creating a level playing field, unshackling the free market, and lowering the bar for entry. But that in and of itself involves punishment of the rich. Not reparations. But they are going to have lose their tax loopholes and their regulations that protect them from competition.

    Where has the GOP been until now? George W Bush spent tons of money and didn’t do too much to promote a free market. He actually gave capitalism a bad name, and part of the reason we ended up with Obama is because Bush ended on such a terrible note. Fed policy under Bush was pretty much the same as it is now. TARP was his baby, w/ Paulson. Bernanke was HIS choice for Fed chairman. That’s why I am so dismayed by the GOP race for president right now. Of course Romney is a big government guy: he loves government intervention as long as it’s “done right.” Just as McCain was forced onto us in 2008, Romney will probably be forced on us this time around.

    Alternatives to Romney? Cain is currently popular: people migrated from Cain to Bachmann to Perry to Cain. Those tea partiers are looking for a candidate to support, and perhaps they will finally settle on Cain. But is he that much better than Romney? This last debate showed what many of us have known all along. The guy is just like the rest. Defense of TARP. Support for Alan Greenspan as his FAVORITE Fed Chairman. He didn’t just fail to see the housing bubble; he wrote op-eds denying we were on the edge of disaster. Reminds me of his gaffe on right-of-return: when the guy doesn’t know something, rather than say what he does know and go from there, he pretends he knows more than he does and lies thru his teeth to sound smart. But intelligence is admitting what you don’t know. Cain’s 999 plan is also a problem, because of the new federal sales tax which, ahem, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, unless we are going to start twisting the interstate commerce clause or general welfare clause to mean what we want it to mean. His earlier comments about mosques were at odds with the first amendment, too. Can’t we get a politician for once who will limit government and follow the constitution, no matter what? Cain is not that guy.

    Perry could be that guy. He certainly has a record of small government, compared to Cain and Romney. But his debates are awful. He talks like a big doofus. Takes him an hour to get out 3 words. Watching him makes me think Bush was a genius. I think he might have a similar electability problem to Palin, though to a smaller degree and one that can possible be overcome due to his jobs record. I absolutely love his strong talk on Social Security, because it’s the truth, but that might be part of the reason why some moderates are afraid to support him. Calling people “heartless” was his biggest misstep. That is the fallback argument of liberals, and when that popped out of his lips, it made me very nervous. It’s just one instance, but Perry hasn’t had the debates to improve his standing yet.

    So back to my first sentence: the sentiments Erick just expressed are things libertarians have been shouting about for years, and it’s important for Republicans to try to find some common ground with OWS rather than completely hate on all aspects of the movement. The Tea Party pushed hard for a smaller government and free market. Romney won’t give it to us, Cain might give us some of it but won’t be the drastic change we need, and Perry definitely could be that guy but his rocky debut as national candidate makes me think it’s less likely. Plus, I want entire departments abolished. I want over a trillion per year (not over 10 years) cut from the budget so we stop borrowing money. Who has the political will to do so?

    I only see two candidates. The first is Governor Veto, Gary Johnson, who has gotten no publicity and been kept from most of the debates. I liked him 6 months ago, but it’s to the point now that he has no chance.

    So I’m supporting Ron Paul. When he speaks about OWS, he sounds just like Erick just sounded. His economic policies are exactly what we need for this country. He has been consistent for decades about not going into debt, not expanding the bureacracy, and restoring state’s rights. On economics, no candidate, not even Newt Gingrich, beats Ron Paul.

    His “weakness” is foreign policy. To RedState commenters, it doesn’t matter that he gets more donations from active duty troops than all other GOP candidates combined. It doesn’t matter how much he promotes using our military to further our national interests, including protecting our border/airports/ports, instead of nation building. He’s NOT isolationist; he voted for military action against Al Qaeda after 9/11. He doesn’t WANT Iran to have a nuclear weapon. He just thinks it’s inevitable unless we either take over the country or nuke it to oblivion, and neither will happen. Furthermore, he’s tired of foreign aid, and so am I. We can stop financial assistance to Israel (strongest military in the Middle East) if we also stop the assistance to all Israe’s enemies.

    If we don’t elect someone like Ron Paul, we will soon be the country that needs assistance. We are in huge trouble w/o a significant change in direction, not just from the path Obama has put us on, but major changes to government problems that have existed under both Rs and Ds. We can afford a strong military, but not the nation building we currently insist on. We can’t afford most of the federal government’s other functions, and most of the GOP field is too nervous about being called “heartless” (or using the term himself) to make necessary cuts. The biggest threat to our national security IS our economic problems.

    I want to say that I will support the GOP nominee against Obama no matter who the primary gives us. I certainly hate Obama and wish he would just leave now; he has been one of the worst presidents if not the absolute worst. Any candidate currently running would do a significantly better job. But “better” won’t save us, when Obama has set the bar so low. We would be much better off with Bush 43 again. But I’m done with the RINOs, with the compassionate conservatives, with the big government social conservatives who say (as Santorum did) that “morals trump the 10th amendment.” As important as it is to get rid of Obama in the short term, it’s more important to me in the long term to kill the cancer in the Republican party that thinks it can rely on the “tea party” voters to support their establishment nominee. I won’t vote for the lesser of two evils anymore, because then I will ensure that I only ever get a choice between two evils. The only way to get a candidate who will come close to saving us is to not settle. The GOP is finished, at least in my mind, if they don’t listen to the Tea Party and elect someone who supports the principles of limited government. Cain is pretending to fill that role right now, but he is not the answer. There ARE many people eligible to fill that role, whom I could support, but unfortunately none of them are running or getting media attention. At this late stage of the primary process, the only candidate who will significantly limit government and follow the constitution is Ron Paul.

  • TopGun

    ?at this stage of the 2012 election cycle, even for those very few you could talk sense to.

  • Menlo

    Could we not all agree that Congress should stop providing subsidies, grants, “investments,” or special loans to private sector businesses, particularly those accompanied by mandates on the consumer’s end? These protestors complain about health insurance companies, Big Pharma, and the big banks, among others; yet their favorite politicians have been front and center in providing these corporations with taxpayer money while ensuring that the abuses the protesters are complaining about not only continue but also get worse!

    I would also add that “loopholes” are not always the problem. Often regulations are supported by the larger businesses seeking to regulate their smaller competitors out of business.

  • westbrook348

    But I’m afraid we are more likely to be visited by aliens than to see congress get rid of all the goodies that are unabalancing the market. i sincerely hope that i’m proved wrong in 2013 (it sure aint gonna happen before then, w/ the current House).

  • westbrook348

    of Erick’s point.

    The people in the middle aren’t communists at OWS. But they are still pissed, and identify w/ the message. Just as they would’ve identified w/ the tea party message, if the media hadn’t twisted it into something scary/nerfarious/racist.

    By all means, hate on the behavior of the dirty police car crappers and litterers. Hate on the socialist demands of the far lefties and the anarchists.

    But the rich HAVE lobbied for special treatment by both parties in congress. And those who aren’t getting that special treatment (most of America) are furious w/ the unfairness of it. Calling THEM lazy pisses them off. Telling them to work harder just alienates them. They’re not poor enough to qualify for free everything from the government, but there’s no way they can compete w/ big business interests. Because of inflation and govt-created monopolies, they can barely get by. But they won’t get a bailout. Only AIG and Goldman Sachs and GM get bailouts. The millions of unemployed are unemployed because of government policy. It’s a legitimate gripe. They see Republicans as in bed with big business, and we have to change that image. Just because we support capitalism and profits, doesn’t mean we have to support the crony capitalist system we have now.

    Empathize w/ the average American and redirect their anger. The media doesn’t hate the Tea Party message; they don’t even understand it. They hated the people voicing it. But the media loves these filthy hippies on Wall Street. Play this right and the media might end up parroting the Tea party message, thinking it originated w/ the OWS movement.

    But to have any credibility, we must for the love of God stop voting in crony capitalist politicians who support bank bailouts & easy money from the Fed.

  • roberthawk

    Eric, I hear and see your comments and search for meaning concerning this issues but there is only one meaning for these so called protests. Your argument falls apart at its underlying statement that it is a response by the unemployed against the wealthy. This event was not organized by the unemployed, this event was carefully organized by Zealot Stoic – Sophists who firmly believe in Mark & Engels Stoic-Sophist based doctrine and the application of the dialectic of materialism. Sure they included the younger unemployed who are experiencing 24 to 30 percent unemployment, however this event was never to be about them.

    I think I remember you saying at a tea party rally that you studied law in college. That would mean that the professors of that college taught you Stoic-Sophism because it has been the backbone for the teaching law since the 1930s, in US schools. Therefore if you are educated in this doctrine, making it very difficult for you to observe it in action. Stoic-Sophist doctrine is the foundation for the denominations of the doctrine which we call Socialism – Communism – Progressivism – Objectivism – Darwinism and the worst of all of them Liberation Theology. Look it up if you find this difficult to swallow. Study this information and you will easily discover the history of philos – sophos (Greek philosophy) is the root doctrine for all these various denominations. The Apostle Paul warned this would be the outcome of we allowed this doctrine to take us as prisoners (Acts 17 and Colossians 2)

    These events (because they simply angry mobs) are put together to perform two separate activities. The first is risk transference. The Democratic party (made up of a majority of Stoic-Sophists), planned these events and even supports these events. Why? Because they fear the election results of 2010 and know that they can not win if the blame for their Socialists economic policies remain tagged to the democratic party. They therefore staged these events to pin the blame on a faceless straw man, i.e. “Wall Street” and the Extremely Wealthy. This is a textbook case of the use of Saul Alinsky’s rules for radicals and Marx & Engels dialectic of Materialism. However Eric, you must be able to stand outside the dialectic to see this. True biblical Christians can see it clearly because it violates our Fathers law. Others are simply blinded by some varying degree of their acceptance of Stoic-Sophism in either Zealot or liberal terms.

    The second purpose is based on the crisis mode of soviet subversion and the resultant overthrow of the US government in revolution. However if the Stoic -Sophists can turn the protests violent (bottom up), then people will run in fear from the protesting mobs (Much like what you are seeing in Egypt). This mode in soviet subversion is referred to as crisis mode. Once the people understand that the local police are not capable to contain the violent protestors, they will beg the government (top down) to protect them. The government officials who planned the protests in the first place will be much ablated to stop the protestors as they move in with military action (inside out). In Soviet Subversion this moment is known as normalization. Its also the point at which the government and the country become communist. Van Jones explains this and is behind the current Occupy Wall Street protests, attempting to bring about communist revolution if possible. You will know when you hear the words Martial Law and the order for all citizens to lay down their arms under Martial Law. This is not a game Eric, its the real deal and its happening right here in the USA.

  • roberthawk

    It is the use of Socratic teaching and the dialectic (logic and reason) which are at work here. They are the very doctrine which is behind this so called protest. Socrates was a believer in Greek Philous-Sophos, as you obviously are as well. All Socialism, Communism. Progressivism, Objectivism, Darwinism, and Liberation Theology are based on the same Sophos doctrine of which Socrates held dear. Its very easy to trace this doctrine. simply research the history and timeline of the philos-sophos or what is commonly referred to as philosophy.

    Philosophy is the conduction of two Greek words philous and sophos. Philous means loving or having an affinity for. Sophos means cleaver or wise argument (the dialectic) used to define what the Sophists accept as truth. In the Webster’s dictionary Sophistry (which is the practice and application of sophos doctrine) is defined such ” unsound or misleading but cleaver, plausible and subtile argument or reasoning” Zeno, Henri Saint Simon, George B Shaw, Darwin, Kant, Hegel and his young Hegelians which include the likes of Bauer, Feuerbach. Marx & Engels, Hitler, Lenin, Mau, and Castro (Just to name a few) were all Zealot believers in this same Stoic version of Sophist doctrine. Any one can trace the denominations I mentioned above back to their roots in Stoic-Sophist doctrine.

    The Russians did not tear down the Berlin wall in 1979 because they had lost the cold war. They tore down the wall because it was no longer needed. They had successfully subverted All countries over to some acceptance of Stoic-Sophist doctrine. Stop and look around you. How many countries are based on Socialism? Even the US government has assimilated the people through the laws of this county into this doctrine. Yes I said that correctly, we have had an organized State religion for some 40 plus years now. Most people have never even observed it. McCarthy almost sunk their boat back in the 1950′s and John Kennedy was ready to use the press corps to expose them (that is why he was shot). They even made an attempt on Regain’s life.

    Therefore, I would vehemently protest the education of these young protestors by any further Greek Stoic-Sophist or Socratic doctrine. The Apostle Paul witnessed this doctrine first hand and the account is well defined in Acts 17 in his trip to Athens. Second, Paul defines how dangerous this doctrine can be to Christians in Colossians chapter 2. the Greek word philous-sophos (philosophy) is only used two times in biblical text, Once in Acts 17 and the other in Colossians 2. Paul was very specific about the use of this word and the danger of this doctrine.

  • streiff

    n/t

  • roberthawk

    Regulation is the method the Zealot Stoic-Sophist use to gain control of and change the course of the United States. Its long been known that there will be one world order. Mans version of that is the Stoic-Sophist based global socialism. If you don’t believe that, simply follow up by researching the Party of European Socialists and their connections to many US democrats (Bernie Sanders, Howard Dean, Barney Franks, Dodd, Wexler, John Podesta… etc. Most members of the democratic progressive caucus (a group founded by Bernie Sanders) have been involved with the Parry of European Socialists for quite some time now.

    If you look at the web site of Socialist International you will find details there concerning global socialism via the United Nations (its already been subverted). The last two legs of the journey are the United States and the Middle East. Once those two are subverted then we will have the settings for global socialism and the achievement of a global government based on Popper’s Open Society, which George Soros carries foreword. Its well known that the Middle East movement is based on the combination of two groups who are being moved into action by a third. Simply look at a map and you can see why those specific countries were chosen. All of the countries in the Middle Eastern conflict are strategically placed to blockade both Saudi Arabia and the State of Israel. Now that the have gone through crisis, there needs to come normalization to bring them all under one socialists based government,
    The USA is under the same attack, and it is loosing the war as most of the politicians currently in Washington DC are Zealot and liberal believers in Stoic Sophist doctrine. These politicians (actually Stoic Sophists) are using the laws of this nation to bring about the assimilation of Socialism. Once the USA is fully assimilated, the remainder to the world will fall into place and Global Stoic – Sophist based Socialism will be achieved. Why? Because the Stoic-Sophists (Socialist, Communists, Progressives and believers in Liberation Theology) all think that a single Global government under Socialism will bring about world peace. Its the same conviction that the National Socialist possessed in Germany during WWII, except they were out to conquer the entire world as the means of achievement.

    At this specific moment in time the movement is being driven by the Russians , who have been behind the movement of Islam against the United States for the last two decades. 911 planning? It was Russian based. They needed the USA to fight against the Muslims in the Middle East and to build hatred of the USA in the Middle East. Why? So Russia could dominate the Middle East. Russia already has contracts with Iran and Iraq to refine Middle Eastern oil and sell it to Europe and Asia. Further they will finally defeat their foe the great United States by moving all the oil transactions from US dollars to Russian Rubles. One would have to be completely blind in order for this to not be observed. What kind of weapons systems do the terrorists use? They are all Russian based. Who helps these regimes build nuclear power plants and refine plutonium? The Russians do! Who owns most all of the worlds uranium contracts, including the ones to supply the United States reactors? The Russians do. Who controls all the natural gas flowing into Europe? The Russians do! Starting to see a pattern here?
    This is prophecy coming to pass right before your very eyes. Daniel chapter 8 through 11 is coming to pass right now and people are ignorant as to its final outcome. Both Iran (Persia) and Iraq (Media) will become very wealthy during this take over of the Middle East and the possession of its oil supplies. They will use that wealth to move against the State of Israel (Judah) and the USA (Manasseh), and its brother nation Ephram (The UK).
    We here in the USA will experience some very tough financial times once the US dollar looses a vast amount of its value. You will have to read Daniel to see what the outcome is.
    Go! get you a Stong’s Concordance and look up the word Adam (Hebrew word 119 and 120), and behold the house of Israel. the sons of Abraham and the sons of Adam (ethhaadam). Turn away form Stoic-Sophist doctrine in all of its denominations oh Israel (Socialism, Communism, Objectivism, Progressivism and Liberation Theology), and ask forgiveness, and maybe the Lord God of Israel will see your crying and have mercy upon you!

  • keonemichaels

    “The point is not that we now need to punish those big businesses. The point is that we need to re-level the playing field and make it a fair competition between entrepreneur and corporation again. We need big business to stop living off the taxpayer dole. We need a new age of corporate welfare reform like the welfare reform of the 1990s.”

  • btpull

    These foolish kids do not understand the greedy unions are killing middle class jobs.

  • satchman3

    I would agree that the government should not fund businesses with taxpayer monies choosing winners in the process. A program like TARP that enriched wall street at the expense of taxpayers should be opposed. The government should not be picking winners and losers.

    We should extend this principle throughout industry – adding in ethanol and solar/green energy supports as an obvious start.

    There is probably some common ground if the OWSers are protesting in good faith. I see no reason to think they are.

  • anjinconsulting

    I agree that Paul warned Christians that sects led by ill intentioned individuals would use irrational logic and lies to dissociate those with weak faith. And later someone wrote a song that said something like ?Philosophy is doggone cereal box religion?? True words! Of course that guy that said first thing we do, we kill all the lawyers was waaaay ahead of his time too. JUST KIDDING Eric?..

    As I understand it, the Socratic method of teaching simply requires the teacher to interrogate the student, then analyze the response and follow up by asking the student to defend his answer using logic. It is typical of Jesus? style of teaching, and in fact, doesn?t the bible contain a passage somewhere in the old testament where God himself says ?come let us reason together?? Doesn?t that imply that men are capable of making well reasoned logical decisions when they are properly and truthfully led? That is why character is so important.

    Any deviant or clever fellow can make abuse that method to derive a desired result IF the student is prone to illogical or irrational thought, or is being interrogated on a subject he has no comprehension of. After reading the article, it seems apparent that the basis of the argument is that there seems to be subset of the protestors that IS rational and logical, and that CAN be reached if they can just be separated from the buffoonery and asked to think for themselves.

    The EAST GERMANS tore down the Berlin Wall because they came to recognize the lies of the communist government. Specifically that communism could effectively feed, care for, maintain and defend its adherents. The communists were effectively neutralized by peaceable demonstration with absolutely no ability to counter argue the lie they had propagated for so long.

    I am not clear on what state religion we have, unless it is the worship of money and pride, at least at the government level.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    Assuming, of course, you’re talking about the late Sarah Palin.

    You’re talking about a pretty liberal record of governance when it comes to spending, every one of her few budgets called for more spending. Her signature issues amount to stabbing the Republicans who put her in a position to run for Governor squarely in the back over “ethics” issues. She NEVER ran as a conservative of any stripe in Alaska. And with respect to appealing to the people, now that Alaskans have had the opportunity to look at the shambles that is her record – Cash4Canada, business tax increases – her favorable ratings are in the 20s. And how about Joe Miller? Palin’s hand picked successor to the Senate seat that would finish off the Murkowski clan loses to a write in candidate that, according to your logic, Alaskans must have hated.

    She got legislation passed in Alaska only because she was the Democrats favorite Republican. Just what we need in DC.

    Then, when confronted by the web of her own ethics law, does she ask the AG – her AG – to certify that her actions in the particular lawsuits in question was in concert with her responsibilities as Governor, and let the State of Alaska represent her, leaving her with exactly zero personal liability? No. I have no idea why, but she didn’t. She cut and ran, giving the extraordinarily weak excuse that it was “for her family”. That’s obviously crap, because after she grabbed up multi million dollar book deals and the Fox deal, her family was right out front making fools of themselves.

    As far as “we didn’t defend her”, that rises to the very pinnacle of stupidity. She didn’t defend herself. When she was attacked, did she confront her attackers? Did she go on network TV and argue directly with those who were heaping scorn on her? Nah. She did the Sophomore-in-HS thing and posted a response on Facebook that was roundly ignored by all but her legion of greased zipper faithful.

    Did she talk a pretty good game? Yeah, in soundbites and generally without a lot of substance. She had exactly no record to back up the idea that she either would or could do any of the things she talked about. Platitude Palin. Slightly more qualified than Obama, but only slightly.

  • Tbone

    Chill. You need to get your PDS in remission.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    Yes they have prison camps and human rights abuses. But most of their workers are not at all slaves, in fact they think they are prosperous. And compared to they way they were 20 years ago they are very prosperous.

    What it is simply is that china was a backward agricultural nation which then began to industrialize. When this happens, and it has happened many times in the past. That nation starts by producing cheap textiles and consumer goods, then gradually adds high quality products.

    They keep their currency devalued which help exports but hurts the citizens. However, they can get away with that for a while because the average worker is still better off than when they were doing farm labor.

    But in time the accumulated wealth creates a demand for higher wages and more goods and services. When that happens it no longer is politically possible to devalue the currency and hold down wages.

    Very very soon China will be entering that stage.

  • johnt

    has a better chance of floating. By all means attack the Destruction State currently in Washington. Point out some of the horrors as well as the beneficial alternatives. But even as a headline, “Common Ground” fails, hard enough sell to a general population but doable, the lower orders festering in their sleeping bags belong to the Democrats. They have been adopted and they’re stupid enough to go along with the adoption.
    To the slime of the Democratic party, especially The O, this is their perverted answer to to the Tea Party.

  • unsk

    Bravo Erick. I think it takes courage among many Republicans to state the obvious these days: America has become a Crony Capitalist/Socialist state and we need to fix it before it is too late.

    The TBTF firms on Wall Street have committed outright and wholesale fraud on such a massive scale, it is almost incomprehensible, and our government has enabled and protected them all along the way. The huge amounts of money Wall Street and Corporate “America” ( and I say that loosely) have thrown at our elected representatives and our bureaucrats have completely corrupted our regulatory system and have tilted the playing field sharply to benefit only the few who can afford to pay to play. Those who deny that only need to looks at the trillions that have been given to the TBTF since 2008.

    This out of control corruption of our regulatory system should be the issue of the day. Without cleaning out the rampant corruption, our economy cannot regain it’s competitiveness, will not return to anything near prosperity, and will continue to slide towards collapse. We really are looking at a terrible chaotic ruin in the foreseeable future, yet it seems both parties have been so bought and paid for that any attempt to reform the system meets with a quick death. That must change.

    That said, ignore OWS. Most of their demands have nothing to do with cleaning up our government and Wall Street and more to do with creating some marxist fantasy Nanny State. It would be much better to find common ground with the tens of millions actually trying to lead productive lives but have shoved to the side of the road by our government and it’s regulatory system.

    Any effort of reform must begin with a return for a respect for our Constitutional liberties. None of our regulatory mess could have happened had we enforced our rights to life, liberty and property as well as the right to equal protection. To create almost any regulation of our current Crony Capitalist/ Socialist system, one of these rights had be trampled or at least infringed upon.

    Our Leftist legal system has exalted the General Welfare clause and the Commerce Clause over the plain wording of our rights spelled out clearly in the Constitution. That must cease. Our rights must take precedence over government’s yearning to regulate. We must put the onus of those proposing and enforcing regulations to prove those regulations do not infringe upon our rights, not the other way around as it is now.

    I would propose all new regulations and all laws and regulations on the Federal, State and local level over the last 40 years be put to a test of Constitutionality, where an affected party could sue for treble damages against any agency or bureaucrat trying to enforce those rules if they are ruled unconstitutional. All those regulations and laws that are clearly a taking under the plain reading of the Constitution like the Endangered Species Act should be ruled null and void immediately. Then all those that in the least way infringe upon any of our liberties should be put to a Cost/Benefit – Risk/Reward test where only those that undeniably can be shown to a clear benefit to society should be allowed. Deregulation should not be the mantra- effective, necessary and constitutional regulation should be.

    Those are tens of thousands of terrible and unconstitutional regulations that are strangling our economy and our lives. Only a system of rigorous and fair legal challenge can sort out this mess. A case by case legislative review would take decades and it’s chances for success would be close to nil. The Special Interests would snuff it out very quickly.

    We must reform our regulatory system. It is horribly broken and until we fix it our economy will be horribly broken as well.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    And it’s not PDS. It’s simply killing the Zombie.

  • 1stRichard

    Your message is correct but what you are missing is there is no way of achieving it without some major changes. First is the need for ?boots on the ground? and this means stepping away from the keyboard and stepping out of your comfort zone. This includes those that have no time of which I am guilty of because we work for a living. This totally sucks being underemployed and being unable to afford more time off. The massive individual involvement is needed because you have to reach isolated social communities and confront them one on one. Additionally this will need to be a sustained effort to overcome the ideological differences, from ending the state funded indoctrination camps under the guise of being colleges to ending nanny state mentality. Reliance on the MSM is stupid, do we need another Republican candidate debate on MSNBC?

    Most importantly is realizing this is a dangers slippery slope to step on because it is Marxism. We must not be aligned with or become the Menshevik, Bolsheviks or Cadets Parties in this and if you do not fully understand this then you need to learn some history. Furthermore, we already had a Populist Party in the United States and this is something we must avoid as well. We do not want to repeat historical facts because of the consequences in this. The Tea Party and all Conservatives must agree we declared our independence from these ideologies. It must be made clear, we are presented with two paths and only one gave us the greatest Nation in the world but we have made a wrong turn under the guise of compromise and bipartisanship, this must end now before it is too late. The road to ruin that we declared independence from must be clearly labeled, the deaths of hundreds of millions seeking that Socialist Utopia this group wants needs to be learned by all and exposed as fact, it is an impossible dream never achieved.

  • spainishirish

    When the Democrats/left-wing demonized the Tea Party, it became a permanent minority. While the Tea Party might not have embraced the Democrats, it certainly could have been been made less hostile.

    There’s a lesson here for us. I’m certain most will not vote for the GOP, but where there is common ground we need to acknowledge it just as you laid out.

  • boonerdan

    Please show me some video or audio of those blatantly ignorant leftists that illustrates some “common ground”??

    If the GOP “needs” common ground with these COMMUNISTS, then the party is dead and it’s truly time for a 3rd party.

  • sadams

    but I am open to persuasion. Even if I assume CRA forced banks to make bad loans, it was the securitization of those loans that set the stage for the disaster that befell us. I attended presentations in the early 1990′s about the securitization of real estate loans; these were being promoted as a way to essentially create money out of thin air. It was obvious to me at the time that no one cared whether the asset being loaned against had sufficient value to cover the loan; it was clearly bogus and I said so at the time. I am pretty sure it wasn’t the government that came up with that idea. Frankly, calling the numerous people involved with these deals used car salesmen would be an insult to used car salesmen. I know it is akin to apostasy on this site to say this, but it seems pretty obvious to me that the financial crisis was the result of irresponsible public AND private sector activity.

  • sadams

    The secondary market for residential real estate mortgages was created by the Federal government in the 1960′s. What I remember in the early 1990′s was that the packaging and marketing of these loans began to be pursued much more agressively than before. The arbitrage involving the credit default swaps was enabled by government, but it was private actors who abused the system, and made billions in the process.

  • snowshooze

    But the trouble was they were bundling garbage.
    Now my attitude is that if you actually bought junk… hey… too bad. It is yours.
    Our government is NOT supposed to step in and save the foreign investors. They are supposed to do absolutely nothing.
    Fannie and Freddie wound up being fiasco’s.
    Now look, the sub-prime loans ran up the housing market artificially, and sold property that was over-valued to those that could not afford it to start with, at the direct order of our government. You shall sell to anyone, have you heard of the ninja loans? No Income, no job.
    And still qualify. Insanity.
    This would never have ever happened without the interfereance of the government. I wouldn’t back a loan to someone who had any income. Well.. I guess, as a taxpayer…I did so by proxy.
    They made the banks do it, and so they did. But they knew the value of the loans… and dumped them to avoid winding up with holding the defaulted properties which were worthless to start with.
    Ah, well… that is the liberal government in action.
    I swear.. this is the truth.

  • steveinfl

    They LOVE the “dedication” and “courage” against the Jewish bankers. So, what exactly does Eric want to do to appeal to such a great group of people? It is clear this is an anti-Semite protest. That is the reason we see Paulinistas. There is a hard core Marxist element looking to push Jew hate as hard as possible. On numerous occasions, the actors come out with bullhorns and signs, and attempt to antagonize people. These are trained monkeys,spewing their vile and hate. These people specialize in overthrowing countries. That’s what they do. The protests are step 1.

  • http://ridersonthestorm101.blogspot.com/ SE-779

  • tngal

    oh this is perfect. But then again a number of dems support it too so, there you go.

    theblaze.com

  • Doc Holliday

    a contrarian indicator. I understand and agree with a lot Erick is saying, but the occupiers will not. Ending patents on software, well, that won’t help things much.

  • gracepmc

    I’ve been thinking about this post since it first appeared.And I have been paying attention to the OWS rabble. Ihave tried to be objective, but this is what I know, have seen, or heard. It is Soros funded and supported.The American flag has been tromped on (or a fasimile thereof), calls for Revolution have been made (often inSpanish), violence is taking place and will most likely increase, personal private property and rights of American citizens and businesses hae been ignored in service of the rights of OWS, at least one uniformed American service person has been spat upon, anti semitic comments have been made. The American media coverage is relentless and presents this as the will of the people.What it is is the answer to Barack Obama’s clarion call for class warfare. It is endorsed by the President of the United States,the Democrats, the Communist Party, the Socialist Party and most recently by the Nazi party with their rants against capitalism and Jews. And the pro abortion Catholic Nancy Pelosi has called upon God to bless them. This is no more about student loans, and jobs than Nancy Pelosi is about Catholicism. If any of these people had commonality with the Tea Party and conservative values they would have sought those out. I, for one, am not going to be out there trying to find the diamond in the rough. And yes this is a rant for which I apologize–the ranting not the sentiment. But at least I didn’t destroy anyone’s property,infringe upon their rights,or slander my country. The first Presidential candidate to stand up to this sham has my support and my vote.

  • runner12

    of an unneeded insult. You are correct that Erick makes this point in the first patagraph.

    But then in the third paragraph there is this:

    “Most of the common ground with most of these damn dirty communists is superficial. But let?s presume there are some people out there who are reachable. We on the right should not be as dismissive of what is happening.”

    I think this is the statement that is causing some of the confusion on this diary and some of the responses. I know that this was the case for me.

    We have a response to people’s legitimate concerns out there. It is called the TEA PARTY. We should begin comparing and contrasting the Socialist/Democrat-funded OWS with the true grassroots movement of the Tea Party. This is the best way to reach out to people who are frustrated with all of the corruption.

    Also, given all of the radical and now blatantly Anti-Semitic groups who are endorsing OWS our candidates would be wise to speak out against it.

  • sadams

    loans were not banks. Countrywide was not subject to CRA at all. And I think it is a little difficult to exonerate the people who were bundling and selling this junk, like Lehman Bros and Citrigroup, who simply didn’t care whether the loans were any good or not. I know there was no due diligence, because I was around when these people were promoting securitization and they barely even gave it lip service.

  • rforeman

    If you remember the old Star Trek: The Next Generation series you will no doubt remember the Borg. It was this cubed object that would roam the universe in search of people it would destroy and conquer. When the Borg approached it would say “YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED!!! REISTANCE IS FUTILE!!!” The Borg operated on the premise once everything was in this common collective and indiduality was obilerated then society would operate harmoniously.

    How is this different than today’s Wall Street Protestors?

    The have cockamaine chants just like the borg and they have the same intentions of wiping out indiduality and increasing the power of the state. They want us assimilated in to their values. They want us to give up our Religious faith, values, guns, liberty and all the like.

    It is diffacult to fight them too just like the Borg. Once they have hold on something they don’t give up on the assimilation process. They destroy everything in their path.

    So what to do?

    If you watched the episode where the Borg was defeated you found out that the crew of the Enterprise did not defeat the Borg by fighting it. They had to be creative in ways that they had never been because they had snatched Captain Piccard. When that happened they had pretty much all of the “strategerie” that Humanity was going to put up against them.

    The crew then sized a window where they were able to recapture Piccard and place him aboard the Enterprise and thus their Android “Data” went to work on using a computer link to him. They ultimately defeated the Borg not by fighting it but by putting a command in to him to “Sleep” Once the Borg went to sleep and the batteries were over charged the Borg blew up. Episode over.

    What we need to do?

    Finding common ground with these people is almost as nonsensical as finding common ground with the Borg. It is not going to happen. These people will argue you to a draw in a post modern way. You might as well talk to a wall. I just passed by the Occupy DC in McPherson Square and there they were with their silly chants that I have seen linked on the Drudge Report We have to defeat them not unlike the crew of the Enterprise. We need to put a command in their collective consciousness to “sleep” And we know the left has as their favorite form of protest the “Die-in” we need to get them to use it.

    The sooner the Conservative movement figures out how to put the command in to the left “to sleep” the more liberty we will experience.

    Thank you,

    Randy Foreman
    Washington, DC

  • lastgopinillinois

    to compensate for the millions of $$$ the banks were losing in lawsuits brought on by the FED under CRA rules (citing discrimination against minorities). Additional losses incurred from the DOJ (under CRA rules) forced banks into lending quota’s for minorities. If banks did not meet their quotas, they were not allowed to merge or make acquisitions. The government also dictated that banks would have to locate new branches in minority communities, regardless of any business viability.
    My point is, derivatives would never have evolved had CRA never been imposed upon the banks. Thus I conclude; the federal government is at fault.

  • justvisiting

    You did point out a common problem. for the Tea Party and OWS. Wall Street.
    But the 2 groups have completely different solutions. The Tea Party solution would have been to let “the market” fix the problem. The financial system would have imploded. Complete chaos. In contrast, the solution for OWS is greater government regulation including breaking up the big banks (which the Tea Party feels is not as effective as laissez-faire capitalism).
    I believe in capitalism. I just don’t believe in laissez-faire capitalism.
    In one of the recent GOP debates, Ron Paul was asked about the FDA and drugs. Isn’t the FDA regulating drugs a good thing? No, according to Ron Paul, the market is all you need. If a drug was introduced and killed a lot of people, then people would stop using it. (Sure, people would be dead. But the market would have done its job.)
    For those of you who think this way, there is no hope.
    Without ANY market rules, we’d have a bunch of large monopolies running this country. Definitely just one huge energy company (the former Standard Oil — which would still exist today)
    Has anyone looked at Russia when they instituted free enterprise without rules? The wild, wild West.
    Who wants to live like this? I want government. I just want a more effective government.
    (Yes, I’m liberal and in business. Economics undergrad, MBA.)

  • Menlo

    I would love to have laughed right in the faces of the people at Dow directly responsible for the decision to choose China.

  • bs61

    The GOP does not represent us and they don’t have the guts to tell the truth!

  • avagreen

    What we need are tradesmen. And, yes, they can make a pile of $$. Plumbers are millionaires these days. AC/DC installers/repairmen make good money.

    Electricians…….OMG! The money they charge (up to $35 hourly, though I’ve not found one that charges that cheaply)….and get it! Up to $50 hr for overtime.

    A good finish carpenter makes good money and is in demand (at least here in Texas).

    A good contractor who is HONEST, DOES GOOD WORK, AND STANDS BEHIND HIS WORK is very, very rare.

    Just being a good handyman/painter/landscape work for small jobs can keep you busy with repairs that people can’t/won’t do today. They are NON-EXISTENT!! Except for the scam artists that try to pass as one.

    This is where the jobs are. And, even someone with a “college” education, if they lowered themselves to accept a trade, or get further training in the trades, could pay off those loans ……better than no job at all.

    Etc. and so on.

    I have an advanced college degree (16 years), and my degree/license is still very much in demand (LCSW), but I also recognize that’s NOT the case with many degrees.

  • avagreen

    **

  • avagreen

    The American media coverage is relentless and presents this as the will of the people.What it is is the answer to Barack Obama?s clarion call for class warfare. It is endorsed by the President of the United States,the Democrats, the Communist Party, the Socialist Party and most recently by the Nazi party with their rants against capitalism and Jews. And the pro abortion Catholic Nancy Pelosi has called upon God to bless them.

    You are correct. The small group of real protesters that started this have been pushed out by all the above. They have kidnapped a real cause to push their agenda. That small group may be amenable for discourse, but not the throngs that ae pushing this world-wide. They are after a revolution, pure and simple, and being funded by Soros. Just like in Greece. Is ithis just a coinkidink that this happening during the election season?

  • Scope

    the meme that you must have a college degree to compete in this world. He is giving government subsidies for some college programs.

    A former neighbor of mine, in her mid-twenties, is a teacher. She got wind of an Obama program where you earn an advanced degree, in an excelerated time period, and half of the college tuition is forgiven if you work for the government for 2 years once you have earned the degree. She moved to Washington, to attend a university there, to take advantage of the program.

    I couldn’t agree more that learning a trade via a technical or trade school is very valuable, and a lot less expensive. There will always be a need for plumbers and electricians and auto mechanics etc. No matter how bad the economy gets, you still have to flush the john and take a shower (except the Wall St protesters of course), you still have to turn on the lights and turn on the stove, and autos won’t disappear from the highway.

  • anjinconsulting

    Wall Street is symptomatic of the root cause of this issue; specifically, that government is unduly influenced by, and is manipulating the market to its benefit.

    The situation is analogous to an addict being given minimal restrictive access to his drug of choice. It is not realistic to expect that the addict will self regulate.

    I wouldn?t say that RP is representative of a significant portion of the Tea Party, but he certainly represents a portion of the Republican Party. The two are not synonymous.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Grants are awarded, tuition goes up
    whining about tuition costs
    more federal aid
    tuition goes up again
    incompetents get tenure
    Teaching political correctness not marketable except for govt jobs

    the bubble
    http://washingtonexaminer.com/node/80276

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    about reaching lurkers as we refute the arguments of trolls her before we blam them!

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    resist the name-calling, but human nature and reality are what they are, and the fact is that we should refute the arguments of the kooks so that people who are listening that are reachable can be reached and converted or at least seeds planted for the future conversions. No matter what a blog says, this is reality. Reagan was converted as was I, over time, thanks largely to hearing cogent arguments, not by being called names or blammed on blogs.

    My quadra-annual diatribe against blamming trolls and plea for gentleness with ignorant libs too quickly is thus finished until the winter solstice. Yes, we may never get the trolls and the hippie leaders, but millions lurk and need tto hear the leftie talking points refuted.

    join me all
    I have a long history of converting libs, and some weren’t my girlfriends!

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    We could put on a full court press against corporate welfare. That would include the kind of crony capitalism of the Obama administration to GE and Solyndra type companies,

    But it would also have to include agricultural subsidies, Ethanol regulations, and various giveaways that some Republican politicians like.

  • Tbone

    nt

  • westcoastpatriette

    I would love to hear more detail about your epiphany as I’m sure there are lessons to be learned for how to reach others.

    Thanks.

  • macbookben

    …I always thought of the Microsoft Corp. as the Borg collective, chewing up and spitting out competitors (like Netscape), or otherwise forcing software companies to conform to their code/protocols/formats because they are pretty much the only game in town, more so then than now. Nevertheless, the Fleabaggers, unlike the Borg who were not centrally organized (no leader), are getting marching orders and marketing support from a handful of international socialist interests (Soros, SEIU, Adbusters, MSNBC, etc.). That being said, this movement, at least in the northern hemisphere, will dwindle down to a few diehard crazies a week or two after the first frosts of Fall. Just wait and see. The news will be covering the riots at Wal-Mart on Black Thursday, which will be sweetly ironic.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    I think this is the first time, or at least one of the first times, I wrote in detail of my Summer of 2000 – June 2001 conversion to full blown conservatism and the GOP. I think I waited because the outline for same (and first two chapters) was and is with potential publishers for a book on my years in the Dem Party and why I left it.

    I used it here in conjunction with Mitt’s last run-in with the Mormon and social issues issue in 2007 during his run for 2008 GOP presidential nomination…but the DeVine conversion section stands alone:

    http://archive.redstate.com/blogs/gamecock/2007/dec/17/gcs_conservative_epiphany_in_detail_and_why_i_believe_mitt_romney

    [PS - I would point out that I eventually switched to Fred Thompson and that this was before ObamaCare, RomneyCare and Mitt's recent nod to manmade global warming, to some degree...smile]

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    THE BIG EXPERIENCE THAT MADE IT POSSIBLE
    I moved from Spartanburg, SC to Atlanta and came face to face with the LEFT in power and in the RAW. I came face to face with stifling Political correctness. I came face to face with liberal racists that treated Blacks like disabled children. I came face to face with raw hostility to people of faith in the Dem Party and the cowardice of people of faith within it worse than I had ever seen. And I worked with a Black conservative that called me out and told me to read Bork.
    Now, why was I ripe for a conversion?
    I now see that I probably stayed in the Dem Party despite having misgivings about the party since soon after I first came of age because to have converted in my hometown would have meant almost a betrayal of many friends and family and a surrender to many people I despised in the GOP that I knew.
    In short, I was a coward or too loyal. But even more so, I was not focused on it so much. I was focused on law practice and family. And the law practice played into the essential denial I was in from the beginning.
    You see, I was a lib dem mainly because of the racial inclusive rhetoric dems used as I grew up. I also bought into the elitist moral pose, and, hence, didn’t have to think. I wanted to be affirmed by the elites, and in law school and then in practice, I bought into being an elite with contempt for the unwashed. We knew better what the Constitution ought to say. And, I was a sinner. I wanted to have my sex and eat it too on “choice.”
    But, all along I had to be in denial about a lot in the dem party, because I was a Christian, I was a JFK strong on defense dem, and I majored in economics.
    Moreover, beginning in the 70s and 80s with Buckley’s Firing Line, Howard Fineman and Charles McDowell on Washington on Washington Week in Review, Pat Buchanan on Crossfire, it seemed that I always agreed with the conservatives. My favorite dems were the ones that were at least perceived as conservatives. I would cry listening to Reagan on the radio, as I had to hate him in public but was so moved by his words.
    One big moment was when he gave the evil empire speech and so many lib dem friends laughed. This told me something was rotten in Denmark. But I went into denial.
    Then came Rush and Mike Gallagher and my experience on the inside of the Dem Party. I fell in love with Talk Radio in the late 80s and early 90s. Mike Gallagher got his big start on WORD-AM 950 in Greenville-Spartanburg. I immediately loved him because he denounced racists. He was a republican. I also acknowledged a disturbing trend in my personal life. I watched as many former racist republicans took the MLK moral argument seriously and were hiring Blacks. I watched many liberal whites become very condescending to blacks, thinking that they couldn’t make it America without their help.
    This ENRAGED me. But I kept it to myself.
    I became a fixture on the Gallagher show. I was known as the liberal lawyer caller, but I began to notice that my disagreements required five caveats!
    And Rush! Well, what was really enlightening was to watch live events on C-Span, and then compare the MSM stories on same with Rush. The libs would leave our reporting on portions of events I deemed important. Rush never did.
    I came to realize that the media betrayed us.
    I also came to see how wise Rush was, and I came to see what he said was true.
    Then there was Clinton. I waited a long time to pick a candidate in 1992. I finally picked Clinton because he was the most conservative.
    But almost from Day One, I saw what compromises he had to make with the far left. And being a county dem leader, over the course of the 90s, I came to see myself as a frontman for the kooks, just like Clinton. One had to calculate one’s words and feign offense all the time.
    I saw good baptists repress their faith in the face of dem leaders that thought it best they not offend the Vagina Monologuer.
    I was very disappointed in the rhetoric Clintion used even when he did goo things, like welfare reform, falling into the class envy nanny statism.
    I became further disillusioned when Clinton did not resign in the face of proven perjury but even more on the near unanimous dem party leaders that excused it.
    One final straw was when I waited for Clinton to follow up on his declaration of war against al Qaeda after the 1998 African embassy bombings.
    Then came Gore, McCain and Bush in 2000. I was repelled by Gore. I watched with fascination the NH and SC primaries as a Dem and so objective observer. I expected not to like Bush and I expected to like the repub that bashed repubs. But what I came to see was that McCain was loved by the msm because he bashed republicans, and I saw first hand in SC that he was the antithesis of straight talk.
    And I found myself agreeing with Bush over Gore, on the issues. But, I held my nose and voted for Gore to reward Clinton for the economy.
    Then came divorce, my father’s death and the move to Atlanta.
    I partnered with a black lawyer who had been GOP chair in Chattanooga. I met a lib editor (that I ended up dating and who let me write for the paper) at a black owned legal organ paper in Decatur, GA in Atlanta METRO that was in Cynthia McKinney’s district. I went to Fulton and DeKalb County dem party functions. I met the LEFT that wants to make victims that keep them in power. I met Blacks and whites that seemed not to want the poor to be empowered by the American dream. I met pure PC truth denying with glazed over eyes liberals.
    They simply denied that supply side tax rate cus worked. They didn’t seem to care about results.
    And one day I told my lib girlfriend that I could no longer call myself a liberal dem and that I was now a conservative dem. She suggested that I simply could not label myself with that “c” word.
    The next day I declared myself a conservative.
    This was before 911.
    A year later I declared myself a republican.
    Here I Stand!

  • westcoastpatriette

    of salvageable liberals. It takes great courage to face ourselves and admit when we have been wrong about things. I have had to do the same many times in my life for different reasons and although the process is always a painful one, it always resulted in much growth in my character and enriched my relationships as well.

    I forget which philosopher it was–Socrates or Plato–who said “The unexamined life is not worth living”–but I learned this lesson in my early twenties when I had to face who I had become and how I had gotten there and the process required me to leave no stone unturned to get the answers I would need to move forward in my life.

    Your epiphany is reflected in the depths of compassion you have as you encourage RSers to consider how to reach others stuck where you used to be. Thank you for showing us there is hope for some of them as we labor to save our nation from the worst of them.

  • runner12

    would make that kind of a comment. You actually had a good point with your comment upthread. Why denigrate it by adding an insult?

    Furthermore, why insult me now? Remember that we are all on the same team here and in the middle of the most important election in our lifetime. Name-calling and petty insults are the last things we should be doing.

  • runner12

    people Communists and/or Socialists, my issue is with the false belief that some of these OWS people can be reached. It comes across as extremely naive. The vast majority of the people protesting are 100% aware who is fumding them and what they are about. These people are committed Socialists with a few even calling for revolution by force. Conservatism has no common ground with these philosophies and never will.

    The people we should be trying to reach are the ones on the sidelines, the spectators if you will. We should begin comparing the Tea Party and what we stand for to the OWS crowd. We can point out that we too despise bank bailouts and the government picking winners and losers. Then we must follow up with why less government and NOT more is needed to correct these problems. Adding that the OWS solution would only create more corruption, oppression, and despair.

    Perhaps this is exactly what EE was trying to say, I am not sure.

    The reality is that we will not convert everyone. There are some who are totally committed to Socialism and tyranny. With these people there is no common ground. Our energy should be focused on converting the masses and those who
    are still open to differing points of view.

  • Tbone

    and a lot of the other posters need to get your heads out of your butts and and start trying to understand the concepts presented. What Erick said was clear, even the example you was cited was clear. You want your nose wiped, call your momma. You want to be on a team where you can be dumb and it’s “OK”, get on a kids soccer team.

    I read posts here about how Cain is some genius for a halfass plan that creates a VAT that has proven to be a disaster for Europe and how Perry wanted to turn “innocent 12 year old girls” into sluts. That kind of stuff is just stupid.

    When I see a pile of dog crap on the sidewalk, I don’t try to explain it, I just point to it and say “dog crap, don’t step in it”.

  • pttx333

    You have come down a very long road to make it to the right side, and I admire your tenacity and honesty. And, as a retired paralegal from a world-renowned and prestigious law firm, I have personally witnessed much of what you relate as to your experiences in the legal field. Even down to having to work near Sheila Jackson Lee – she’s always been just as she is today. Yucko!

    It is fascinating to hear you reveal the inner workings of liberal circles – something I cannot speak to since I’ve always been a Republican. Though my family were all Dems (albeit very conservative ones), they were floored that I just could not vote their way. The PC part of liberalism is so foreign to me, not to mention absolutely bewildering. In fact, I truly believe that PC is rude and insulting, but maybe that is just me.

    At any rate, thank you so much for your post. I applaud you, GC!

  • runner12

    Quite the contrary. Nor do I back away from confrontation or debate. My point is that you do not need to continue to hit people over the head with a baseball bat, verbally speaking, to get your point across.

    I am all for speaking truth. However, people are more likely to listen to you if you make your point without name-calling..

    Just because people disagree with you or do not see things your way all of the time does not make them dumb or foolish. If you think they are wrong, educate them if you can. Get them to see your viewpoint without hurling insults.

    You may actually change someone’s mind instead of just offending them.

  • beach91

    I didn’t have the same conversion experience (well with religion I did but won’t get into that here!) as I was raised in the conservative movement and being a conservative just seemed natural and logical. Thanks for the post!

  • wheelworker

    I think you made some good points. I’m not inclined to agree with them, but that essentially has to do with basic assumptions about human nature and the role of the state in society. Not to mention my less-than-complete faith in the free market.

    However, I will take exception with one statement in particular:

    “Those ?born into money? did not necessarily provide such value to society, but society also had nothing to do with their wealth: that was the result of their having been fortunate enough to have been born to wealthy parents, which is a random factor which society has nothing to do with.”

    I don’t really think that’s a valid argument. Society created the circumstances in which wealth could be made. Even Jobs didn’t create his technology out of thin air. He built on the accumulated knowledge of humanity. He worked within a social structure that made his achievements possible. He hired workers trained in public schools, put out his products on highways built by the public, and so on.

    I think the essential problem is the idea that profits generated in this system have no relationship to the system in which they were generated. That’s simply false. Now, it would be self-defeating for society to confiscate all of the wealth for reasons you are all well aware. But I would argue that it is similarly destructive to buy into the flawed belief that the individual who has enjoyed success in our society owes no debt other than whatever positive externalities resulted from an individual’s pursuit of profit. Obviously the exact percentage owed back to society is a subject for legitimate debate, but to deny all legitimacy to society’s claims on a portion of the wealth generated (as some do, calling all taxation “theft”) is a dangerous idea that will lead to enormous inequalities very quickly that will be highly destabilizing to society. This will ultimately undermine the ability of future individuals to pursue profits because of the break down of law and order. Not to mention the dwindling public sector that was essential to the creation of profits by the private sector in the first place. Society, operating democratically through the government, has a legitimate interest in using tax revenues to create a healthy, well-educated, secure country. It is legitimate to raise enough revenues for this to be possible.

    In the case of someone who inherited wealth these problems become all the more obvious. What social good does Paris Hilton create?

  • Tbone

    Maybe you are right. I just don’t have enough tolerance. So, tell me what part of you stupidity on which you would like me to focus my available tolerance in that I agree it is insufficient to cover all of it?

    “Just because people disagree with you or do not see things your way all of the time does not make them dumb or foolish.”

    Well, it’s either me or them and I’m going with them. ;-)

  • aesthete

    and then point a gun at you demanding $20 in return for services rendered, that’s alright? If I am a husband who provides for his wife and children monetarily, am I entitled to sex from my wife — and is it appropriate for me to take it by force when she’s not open to that prospect? Obviously, the answer to both questions is no: even when the offenders are arguably providing some sort of benefit, both actions are called “theft” and “rape”, respectively, because they are both missing a very important component –informed consent. We have a different word for when a government does something similar — taxes. The more that informed consent is involved in the decision of how much and who to tax, the less it resembles “theft”, but taxes — particularly redistributionary and selectively-levied ones — do nonetheless have many of the attributes which make theft so odious — a lack of consent, an implied threat of violence if government doesn’t get its way, and oftentimes either bad motivations or bad outcomes behind them. Involuntary taxation is probably necessary for government to function well, but it is the chief failing of the left that they fail to see this as something to be minimized, and that they are blind to the disadvantages to having a society organized through violence and coercion as opposed to voluntary mechanisms. That obliviousness strikes me as much more worrisome than whether Bill Gates has 100 or 1000 times my net wealth.

    I’ll also note that you’re confusing terms. Government =/= society — at best, it is one of many implements used by society. At worst, it is a confiscatory regime utterly foreign from and in conflict with society. Most governments throughout time and space have more closely approximated the latter. The US’ government, and some other republics, have come closer to the first model. Nonetheless, government is not an expression of society’s aggregate will, never has been, and never will be.

  • aesthete

    the question is not, what did Paris Hilton create — it is, what did Conrad Hilton create to get the wealth, and did he a) compensate society commensurate with the wealth earned and b) recieve his money without the use of violence? Not knowing much about him, I will nonetheless venture a guess that Conrad Hilton both paid taxes and got customers to pay out of pocket for his hotels of their own accord. Both, I think, satisfy the above, and thus talking about punitively taxing this legitimately-earned and societally-beneficial wealth again simply because it is being spend on the owner’s posterity as opposed to, say, hookers and blow, strikes me as a very odd position to hold, in that you are taxing what should be seen as a responsible behavior (providing for one’s children), rather than having taxes go towards actual services rendered. What service was rendered when money changed hands — perhaps 5 minutes of a court official’s time? If that’s the case, then what is the moral case for taxation, besides, “I don’t like Paris Hilton very much”?

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    as long as there is an ample exemption to protect small businesses. Simply because history shows that inherited wealth is reinvested into the new business, or business expansion somewhat in the second generation, but in smaller amounts in each successive generation.

    For every Malcolm Forbes II, you get a clan of fourth generation trust fund Kennedy s.

    It doesn’t bother me to break up those very large inheritances a little bit. It causes capital to move around a bit.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    have already paid more in both a total amount, and as a percentage due to our progressive tax system, therefore they do not owe any further debt to society.

    Likewise, if they spend their money they pay more in sales taxes, and if they do not spend it, then it does them no good unless they invest it, which is also good for society.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    it is just one area where I think more pragmatically than ideologically.

  • aesthete

    but I also don’t see that they’re particularly lucrative or efficient — for particularly large estates, it’s pretty easy to avoid estate taxes, and the cost to do so is much less than what the estate tax would usually be. (After all, MA has one of the highest estate taxes in the country and the Kennedys are still going strong.)

    It’s really more a way to grab some upper-middle class wealth than anything else — with all the other things going on, that’s not a priority for me, but it is still somewhat irritating.

    I tend to view taxes more pragmatically, too: after all, whatever isn’t collected by taxes will be funded either by borrowing or non-ruels based inflation, and I much prefer taxes to either of those two. Long-term, taxes, borrowing, and inflation are ultimately functions of spending, not the other way around (IMO).

  • aesthete

    I just don’t find the moral, as compared to other, arguments for exclusively taxing the rich particularly convincing for the reasons explained above.

  • gracepmc

    is a phrase some people have used to bring people with similar goals together.And the more I watch OWS unfold the more I see merit in this. It appears that there are suspect origins and financing behind it, it is being portrayed as the Left’s Tea Party, and apparently Obama is all in. And those who stay will be supportive of another Obama term. Good enough reasons to avoid being dragged into outreach. Too much room for guilt by association. That said, promoting the values the Tea Party and Conservatives stand for should attract those who become disaffected with the extremes of OWS. We could certainly do more especially in terms of opposition to crony capitalism, (which is not new to the Obama Administration but which has certainly run rampant in it) and promotion of conservative efforts at “job creation”. Dialogue with these people seems futile. The left has a powerful PR and communications team, and the press is clearly with them,any attempts to bridge a susbtantive divide will not be to our advantage. Apologies for the “double dip”.

  • windwaker24

    I get from the context it probably means “also”. Where did it come from? It’s kind of interesting that everyone around here uses it. :)

  • westcoastpatriette

    and I had a question I wondered if you would answer. Since you found Erick’s reference to OWS members as “damn dirty communists” less fair and balanced than you would portray them or yourself, do you call yourself a “socialist”? If not, why not?

    My next question would be, exactly what kind of government class do you teach? Do you base your opinions on the functions of government on the foundation known as the U..S. Constitution? If so, where in the Constitution do you find references to a person “owing” a portion of his wealth to society? Can you cite one article or amendment that empowers government at the state or federal level to make an individual repay a portion of his wealth to society progressively?

    If you detect a little snark coming through my questions, you are correct. While I hope you are enriched by coming to RedState to “try to understand the thinking of the right,” pardon me if I tell you listening to you tell us how the left sees things is a little hard to stomach. While making your arguments, you come across sounding like a condescending elitist who never considers the Constitution’s limitations on government powers when spouting your utopian views. I find it irksome the same way that I find socialism an anathema to our system of governance.

  • aesthete

    to your own post, named after a commentator who was legendary for it (oftentimes replying to his own post 5-6 times).

  • thundercatkp

    “Instead of punishing those people, we should lower the bar to entry for everyone else.”

    Seriously? For real? You really wrote that? Did you mean it? Or is it LOL j/k? I was right up with you until the end dude. No way do we need to give into a bunch of whining American’s that are just trying to either:

    1. Get something for nothing.
    2. Seize the opportunity to make a stand for something anything at all and have it televised.
    3. So self absorbed they aren’t really sure what they are against. Big Government or Big Business, who cares as long as it is BIG.

    It’s amazing just how many people will crawl out and onto the sidewalks evidently, when they see an opportunity to appear sincere. They are just playing the Look at me I’m a concerned Citizen Card. Makes me sick.

    Republican candidate can run against Wall Street…ha Who in their right or left mind would do that Eric? Not Perry or Romney they’re Democrats anyway. No Republican would run against bureaucracy, they need funding too :) Especially if they win 2012. They’ll need all the help they can get because around 2015 the American people that we need to lower the bar for will be accusing the Republicans for being in control and nothing changing…they won’t even think about the HUGE mess that had to be cleaned up. Lower the bar…to what? Dumbing down America isn’t the answer.

    I read an article that did make sense at:
    http://peoplecanignoreit.blogspot.com/2011/10/open-letter-to-occupiers-across-nation.html

    He had one thing right for sure. Someone is going to end up killed over this crazy behavior that your encouraging when you say ‘oh let’s just lower the bar’

  • windwaker24

    That’s funny!

  • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

    and other questions/concerns you may have, are answered by reviewing all the RS:Rules/Help and/or be respectful, or be banned (the Diary)

  • runner12

    Regardless of what you or anyone else says. So fire away with your insults. I am not threatened by them because I know your assumptions about me are false.

  • publious

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3eetvHeSvg

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    thx guys

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    them un-receptive. Glad conservatives didn’t give up on a certain rooster years ago…smile

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    were the face rather than that Hitler piker than killed millions less innocents than either of the former.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    he killed a lot of communists.

  • Tbone

    OK, I was just having you on a little. You are as sharp as a tack.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    The Left was too invested in the USSR to ever let it be the main example of fascist oppression and Mao is a “minority” victim of the white man.

  • thundercatkp

    @thundercatkp

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …because it is dangerous to align with anarchists.

    Claiming to establish “common ground” is politically desirable, but must be based on sound principles [deregulation, etc.] rather than a desire solely to guide the positive aspects of a movement towards Conservative belief-systems.

    Here, the panoply of supporters is undoubtedly D-oriented, and it may be wiser to remain @ arm’s length [at least] while this putative TPM-of-the-progressives dies out over the winter months…as the unemployed grow to realize [one hopes] that their putative-champion [BHO] is actually the unabashed-culprit.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …it is dangerous to align with anarchists.

    Claiming to establish “common ground” is politically desirable, but must be based on sound principles [deregulation, etc.] rather than a desire solely to guide the positive aspects of a movement towards Conservative belief-systems.

    Here, the panoply of supporters is undoubtedly D-oriented, and it may be wiser to remain @ arm’s length [at least] while this putative TPM-of-the-progressives dies out over the winter months…as the unemployed grow to realize [one hopes] that their putative-champion [BHO] is actually the unabashed-culprit.

    It is necessary to elaborate on this point, noting the thread through the rest of these postings that is attempting to be [1]–accommodating, and [2]–skeptical.

    Here, noting the predictions of Glenn Beck would be helpful. He has consistently warned of such worldwide, generic “protests,” that would start in the Middle East ["The Arab Spring"]. And this is not a selective-quotation; it has been central to his overall prognostications.

    Knowing this, it is vital to rail against bailouts, etc., as has been done ever since the TPM started. BUT THAT IS ALL! The anti-corporate flavor [and offshoot anti-Semitism, etc.] is bitter [and borders on creating an almond-aftertaste]. We do not want to be around when the poison self-immolates.

    Sorry about the mixed-metaphors, but cyanide/arsenic [unlike tannic acid] are not nutritious components of a TEA Party Movement. There is far too much WRONG about these destructive, law-evading, non-thinkers that contrasts vividly with the constructive, law-enhancing, historians of the Constitution-Centered, Self-Respecting, Limited-Government moralists who have [thankfully!] infested the GOP.

    We must view their moral-relativism as anathema to our situational-ethics. We must not appease class-warfare, for this would entrap/distract us from our successful educational effort.

    Wandering afield, a bit, but I would note the contrast between Romney’s relative-silence [beyond supporting his financier-colleagues ] and Cain’s condemnation; although the latter is a bit global in its stridency ["Get a job!"], it is apt. Candidly, I’m looking for my favored POTUS-candidate to weigh-in forcefully, as well.

    Noting the most favorable iteration of any potential common-roots between the OWS-types and the TPM-adherents–
    http://www.ocregister.com/articles/wall-322113-street-party.html
    –one remains wary of such a diffuse “anti-corporate” edge.

    THEREFORE, my “vote” is to allow the D’s [like Axelrod and BHO and Pelosi] to reflexly support these Soros-automatons…as we stand forthrightly against people who basically want more Obama-Money “redistributed” to them….absent any meaningful quid-pro-quo. We have our pathway to returning America to the principles articulated by the Founders/Framers, we already have plenty on our plate, we have become successful.

    “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!” AND CERTAINLY, it is always dangerous to “adopt by reference” the policies of an unknown-resource [both when legislating via Robert's Rules and when problem-solving].

    We must differentiate the TPM’s positive-postures from the OWS’s negative-postulates…consistently, rigorously and unambiguously!

  • davesinsanantonio

    trying to latch onto”, but that there may still be individuals there who can still be saved. This also points up the differences between the Left and the Right. The Left is all about using groups to save those groups, at least that is what they say,\( although their track record is that they exploit groups for their own power). The Right is all about empowering individuals to save themselves. That is why the Left hate us so, because the more individuals are really empowered, the less they can be controlled by those who long for power over others.

  • joetexan

    = making people who aren’t using the energy (i.e., taxpayers) pay for it. If exploiting a renewable energy source is viable, companies will do so, without subsidies from taxpayers or China.

  • davesinsanantonio

    his bill, and only his bill, be passed. Why should it always be only the Republicans who compromise?

  • davesinsanantonio

    Wheelworker above.

  • davesinsanantonio

    of thin air” may be correct, but government didn’t create it at all!!!
    Also, Jobs paid plenty in taxes over the course of his career. I, and many others on the Right, believe that that is contributing back to the society that made his wealth possible. The same is true of Trump or Ted Turner, both of whom I despise, but don’t advocate confiscating their wealth either.

  • paco12348

    Can the OWS’s read news on the net? Can they see the news? Are they capable of reading and listening to the right and left to make up their own mind? Do they know how to go to the source of what they hear from the right and left to listen for themselves and make up their own mind? It doesn’t take long to figure out which side is doing the spinning. If they aren’t capable of doing that much then I don’t have much use for them. I know they don’t teach critical thinking in the indoctrination program called an “educational system” in this country but at some point, with half a brain, a thinking person picks up on the lies and spins. Don’t they?
    What use are all the media systems this country has if just used to play games and send email?

  • gunsrus

    Leadership is what the political process SHOULD provide. To start providing followers for a rabble rally could, or more likely, would backfire.
    The Woodstock clowns just want to get high, have cheap sex and get on camera. They left is organizing these events to steal the thunder of the Tea party which the media has not been able to control.

  • davesinsanantonio

    maybe we will start to take the media seriously!

  • davesinsanantonio

    and the resulting breaking up and selling off of assets through bankruptcy will make them all small again. Problem solved!

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    both parties had not totally ignored anti trust laws. Throughout the 80′s and 90′s a handful of financial institutions gobbled up all their smaller and regional competitors while the people in Washington allowed it.

    Lack of competition, and allowing firms to become so big that they have undue influence on the government is never a good thing.

    This is where I break with modern economic theory which is anti-antitrust.

  • kervick

    For a most lucid analysis. Erick got it right, up front and you captured my thoughts exactly. I was a Romney guy last time, but I’ve studied more and now realize he is a corporate shill and his donations are largely coming from the financial sector. He won’t change anything that affects those guys. He is also not a philosophical Libertarian.

    Cain comes across as a very cautious, conservative guy, who probably hasn’t applied a lot of critical thinking to the great challenges of the day.

    Republicans need to be the voice of the populist center of the country, the common sense conservatives, if they want to be the governing party. Or, call them conservative populists, or Wall Mart Conservatives, or even just plain old Independents. Ron Paul is the only guy that is speaking to that cohort. He is bridging the Tea Party/Occupy divide right now. Watch Freedom Watch and you will get a sense of that balanced approach from Napolitano, a Ron Paul supporter.

    So called Movement Conservatives like Palin, Perry, and now Cain bring too much other baggage to the table. They have little appeal to the center and center left electorate.

    It is time for a Libertarian/Independent voice in Washington who will actually do something to create real reform. Look for Ron Paul’s economic proposal today. Red State readers will like it.

  • welder4

    I have always thought that many in the protests are not going in the right places one step would be to go to DC all of them and set up camp there and demand that the politicians get off the neck of the economy and step aside and let things work as they should. Obama is where they need to protest but there are enough communist and other bad groups in it to discredit the entire group .If the people who are paid and ones who are there to promote socialism were removed we would have another tea party group . demanding a 20 dollar an hour wage and free this and that is not the tea party period . The unemployed are easily led by hopes of a fair deal , very sad indeed.

  • lastdaysofpompeii

    You can not reason with a mob. There is no cohesive message from these actions other than disruption. The socialist organizations are ‘making use of a good crisis’…and if one isn’t there create one.
    Their being on Wall Street and not Pennsylvania Ave shows that, It is too hard for them to believe that Obama lied to them with the delusion hope and change. The left is just playing them.

  • Change Jar Conservative

    Conservatives love to tout a strong powerful America when it comes to the military.

    We love to say America is the greatest country.

    But when it comes to jobs, we are all for selling out to offshoring big businesses. The reason that there has always been a default amnesty is that the Big Business Republicans go along with the Democrats on the issue.

    Is there an easy answer? No.

    I’ve tossed some ideas out in other threads that could help address this:

    1) Any dollar spent by the US government must go to a US company if there are 2 or more companies bidding on a contract.

    2) If we ever go down the road of the Chilean model for SS privatization, 50% of the invested monies should be required to go into companies with half their jobs in the 50 US states (forget this puerto rico / martinique stuff).

    3) We need to rip business taxes down so low that we pull manufacturers in.

    4) We need to massively cut all of the different rules on businesses.

  • spolson

    I married a completely wrong woman, so I know what it is like to be wrong. You are wrong on this issue. All you will accomplish is to convince these so call reachable people is convince them that they do deserve someone’s piece of the pie because the world should be fair, equal, and easy.

    They have been convinced by the liberals that they are not responsible for their plight. The ones in college need to go back to the college and be thankful that there lives will be enriched by the process.

    Many hard working people (of which they are probably not) can’t manage to go to college because they cant stop working enough. Maybe the protesters need to give up their seat at their college to be (FAIR). They need to learn to identify the facts. Liberals and Democrats are most responsible for their plight. Not be lead by slogans and propaganda. They also need to think about their complicity. A degree in Liberal arts is good for what job? You didn’t want to get a job when you started college or you would have chosen a different course of study. Same goes for Woman’s studies, Environmental studies, African studies,
    These type of degrees are not job related. How many Environmentalist do you think the world needs and a college graduate should have the skills to see a fraud and know what it means. In case you don’t it means the Global warming crap is a fake. Oops. I started writing about your post and ended up addressing the protesters help them find the truth and change the things that are working against them. OBAMA and the Commies and Liberals. If they really feel equal is the way to go, There are plenty of countries that agree and only keep people in not out. Again they will be responsible for their decisions.

  • wheelworker

    How about this: human beings cannot exist without other human beings, and the many fruits of civilization are not possible without a stable society. A stable society, one in which you have a relatively high degree of security, health, education, infrastructure, employment, etc., is simply not possible without a government that has the power to tax at a level where these services can be provided. Thus, it is patriotic to pay taxes, for it is through taxes that we are able to provide a basic level of civilization, without which there would be no private sector success.

    Progressive taxation is a reasonable and successful way to achieve these ends. Advocating that those at the very top who have seen astronomical increases in wealth since the 1980s as a result of the social conditions made possible by society pay a few percentage points higher taxes is hardly Marxism.

  • Jim Tomasik

    Just curious.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    One heck of a lot more than Teddy Kennedy and the entire Kennedy clan. One heck of a lot more that John Kerry and his wife.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    You want a progressive tax system, here:

    Eliminate corporate taxes. That takes away most of the incentive to buy favors in the tax code.

    Eliminate all personal deductions. ALL of them.

    First $30,000 of income EVERY taxpayer pays 10% of gross.
    Next $50,000 of income every taxpayer pays 13% of gross.
    Over $80,000 of income every taxpayer pays 17% of gross.

    Income tax is filed on a postcard. Every taxpayer has skin in the game. And you’ve got your progressive tax code.

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    It exists to raise revenue. That is all. It does not exist to employ people, play Robin Hood, manipulate our behavior, or make anyone else “feel good.”

  • awkingsley

    Look at the OWS plank, today, Monday, October 17th. The Libertarian demands of eliminating the Fed are no longer on the plank. Only demand #1 resonates at all with conservatives. The other demands are better met with state’s rights, and an amendment returning senatorial elections to the states. A return to Glass-Steagall might be helpful, but the main problem is the expanded CRA that coerced banks into making loans to under-qualified borrowers. The OWS protestors are mostly just crying: They have almost no viable solutions in their plank now

  • cbartlett

    Those federal environmental regulations would kill it in a heartbeat. From someone who works in the field of planning for infrastructure, a developer (with wealth-duh!) wouldn’t attempt a project like that right now because of the roadblocks from federal regulation. That is why, BTW, the shovel-ready projects didn’t work – there IS no such thing. For a city, county or even state to have a shovel-ready project available to build in the time-frame required by that idiotic legislation, they would have had to spend a ton of money AND years of time to do the environmental studies beforehand and then just shelved the project, waiting for some benevolent manna from heaven to pay for the actual construction of the project. Who does that?!? And – remember – if it sits on the shelf too long, they’ll make you start the process all over.

    There is an underlying theme to this whole thread of comments – we need to get back to local government control and get the freakin’ feds out of our lives. If a city wants a Riverwalk project and thinks it will be a good thing for the community – the local “wealth” should get out and support the idea and idiots in Washington DC should have NO say so in the whole deal. I can call my city councilman anytime and I have numerous opportunities to actually contact my state reps. & senators. We have even talked with our federal Congressman but he is only one of many and flat out told us he couldn’t help with a problem – it’s out of his hands. If my own “elected representative” can’t tell the EPA they are screwing the public, where do you go to appeal stupidity? I feel like we have ZERO control over what is happening in DC but everything they do affects us every day.

  • cbartlett

    A couple of 21 degree nights will send these people home. No way are they dedicated to the “cause” (whatever that is) enough to put up with that – a lot of them are just there to party with their friends. What’s really amazing is that they HAVE homes to go to – Capitalism at it’s best…..

  • jlancellotti

    Tailfins, I’m sorry but I respectfully disagree with you. These demonstrators are deadly serious. I doubt that they can be convinced otherwise. I believe they are willing dupes of the left, particularly big time union leaders… and rich men like George Soros whose aim forever has been to topple the United States. Best always. John

  • steveinfl

    and kill, and destroy: I am come that they might have life, and they may have it more abundantly.
    John 10:10
    John 15:25 ” But this happened that the Word might be fulfilled which is written in their law, They hated me without a cause”.

    Acts 17: 5 illustrates the mob being used for evil.
    Colosssians 2:8 warns of being cheated through philosophy and deceit.

    The protesters have a spiritual sickness. Offering a political solution won’t solve the problem. Socialism is stealing. They are trying to steal the wealth of the country through lies and deception.

    This is a spiritual war, and can only be won through spiritual means.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …is this subsequent video

    http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2011/10/17/anti-semitism-on-casual-display-at-occupy-la-ows/

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …her metaphor with the dangers of “mob” rule [in both senses of the term] is apt, comparing 1776 with 1789.

    Melissa Harris-Perry, professor of politics at Tulane University and MSNBC contributor, just commented on this “worldwide movement” by claiming it now necessitates that academics do the work of discerning its impact. She claims it would be strategically unwise for them to articulate specific proposals, lest some supporters become dismayed.

    We must maintain definable distance from this effort, except to note what Rush has noted…that the bailout to Wall St. impeded free markets and, thus, these lefties should support efforts to fight big-government.

  • dajeeps

    They are not free to contract their own labor. They are allocated by the state, and in that sense, they are slaves, paid enough just to say they aren’t. And that is what I meant by calling it a slave state, because they do have a rather unforgiving class system; how economically liberated one is depends on who they are, not how much they’ve worked or how lucky they’ve been.

  • ginka

    Hello.

    I read this column as a confirmed liberal, who wants to understand where conservatives are coming from. I’m acutely aware of the vitriol that comes from both sides, but also amazed at how much we do seem to have in common.

    What got me about this piece was how much I fundamentally agree with every one of your recommendations.

    I would LOVE to simplify the tax code to cut out loopholes. Enact corporate welfare reform, just as you say. Cut out regulations on small businesses that choke enterprise. Empower local governance to sort out the best way to deal with providing health care and educating their citizens, and create a nation of regional laboratories to foster policy innovations. Most importantly, I agree that leveling the playing field will make us stronger and more competitive across the board? and to that end, even the big businesses will be better off because of it.

    It’s my belief that the media has allowed us to become unnecessarily paranoid and vicious towards differing viewpoints, which is unfortunate. The media would have us believe that conservatives want to completely castrate the government and vaporize all social services, and the liberals will smash capitalism and set up a Marxist police state. I’m sure there are a smattering among us who have these radical viewpoints. Their voices tend to be trumpeted loudly by the respective opposition. But the truth is- I really think most of us just want a strong America, where everyone gets a fair shake.

    Government needs to be cleaned up. I agree unequivocally 100%.

    To me, government is reactive by nature. It responds to pressure and money. I hear loud and clear the frustrations of conservatives with big government, and fully support eliminating waste. Let’s clear up the tax code and fire 2/3rds of the IRS! Get rid of every committee that ever existed, and start over! As you explained with great clarity, the rich get richer because they are the ones with the seat at the table at Washington, demanding the least impediment to their profits. We’ve been reading and watching divisive ideologues in the media while the lobbyists and Super Pacs set the agenda. Republicans through history have warned about monied interests being the greatest threat to the republic, from Thomas Jefferson to Teddy Roosevelt. This quote is being widely by Occupy protesters:

    “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.” – Thomas Jefferson

    The default position is that conservatives want small government and liberals big government, but I think we all just want -different- government. It should be simpler, more transparent, and less wasteful. Everyone should pay taxes, and it should be fairly distributed. The extremely poor should pay less, but the rich certainly shouldn’t be carrying the rest of us on their backs. Tax evasion should be impossible, and paying taxes should be really easy to figure out.

    I want as you say, corporate welfare reform, so that big financial firms have to be clear about the risks they are taking. I don’t want to throw out capitalism. I just want to make sure that consumers have recourse against unfair practices, and that lenders are held accountable if they misbehave. (Just as they hold me accountable!) I want a political process without Super Pacs. There is a LOT in common between the Tea Party and the Occupiers. That we have different areas of concern is a strength, not a weakness. Conservatives are focused on government waste and liberals on being corporate watchdogs. Rather than fight about who is right, let’s start rebuilding a platform of common ground.

    Finally— it bothers me that this forum is so quick to say that liberals are lazy. The young people I know are not lazy. They are smart, passionate, innovative, and undaunted by the challenges presented to them. Our anger comes from a desire to see justice for EVERYONE, especially those who are less fortunate. For me– I can work like a demon and do without health insurance. I’m acutely aware of how lucky I am. But I also know that my forefathers died to protect the rights of workers like me and the ones less healthy and well educated.

    Also – I’m not jealous. I don’t want to be rich, or get revenge on anyone. I know life isn’t fair, and I’m ready to face whatever life throws at me. I just want to make sure that the deck isn’t stacked.

    God Bless.

  • gekster

    you are a closet conservative. ;)

  • ginka

    I doubt anyone could be as infatuated with Jon Stewart. He seriously makes me weak.

    So nope- I’m not a conservative in any way, and would fail nearly every purity test. I’ll admit I don’t trust Republican leadership, and fear that they are owned by Goldman Sachs. (See?)

    BUT

    I think the lines are changing, and Tea Partiers and Occupiers look and probably smell different, but they are all mad as hell at the same systems.

    The hardest thing to listen to is the sound of the people on this board shredding their fellow Americans. I wish you guys would stop.

  • 912defender

    I visited the occupiers in Tampa, Florida, a small group of college aged kids mostly with signs that read We are not against corporations, we are against corruption, and Audit the Fed. I say they are just a little late to the Tea Party. The problem is these kids are impressionable and do not understand that government is to blame for much of the problems that face them and their futures. They have been taught that government can solve all of their problems. If we leave them to the progressives they will become more militant and demanding and even dangerous. The question is – how do we get to them?

  • malcolml

    Erick,
    They are damn dirty communists-envy, jeolosy. You need a butt plug in your mouth.

  • gekster

    We really don’t have a purity test.
    And all this goings on is hashing out to try to find the best candidate to run.
    Mind ya, some go over the edge sometimes, and with flying leaps at that.
    Then we get some who just want to turn the furniture upside down, throw crap an the walls and such.
    All in all, when we do pick a candidate, 90% will get behind him, whoever it might be, and 10% will pout and take thier ball home.

    And being infatuated with John Stewert is not a test to be conservative.

    Let me ask you.
    1. Are you for a small and populace reactive Government.
    2. Do you think the country should be run on the principles this country was
    founded on.
    3. Are for fair and equitable taxation.
    4. Do you think the Government has over regulated the businesses to the point
    of strangleing them.
    5. Do you think Congress should be reigned in and quit spending money we
    don’t have.

    Just a couple of questions, and if you answer 2 or more yes, well then.

  • gekster

    ….

  • ginka

    What’s interesting is that liberals are convinced that Tea Partiers are willing dupes of corporate interests- Rupert Murdoch and the Koch Brothers.

    I think that’s too easy, and a horrible assessment.

    I agree that the demonstrators are deadly serious, and care deeply about their concerns. They care about many of the same things you do, and are also afraid that the actual goal of conservative policy is to destroy the ‘safeguards of the American dream’ and give way to corporate rule, to use phrases that will probably upset you and trigger a response. I ask you, are we capable of controlling that response, or has it come to define us?

    Rather than speak in such ridiculous extremes, we should try to really listen- Occupiers want a fairer banking system and corporate accountability. They wouldn’t object to their tax dollars being spent better in the least, if they could trust that conservatives weren’t trying to usher in global financial collapse so we can be governed by private companies. That’s crazy……………..isn’t it?

    Please let go of the diatribes and give way to dialogue. Oh and reassure me about the collapse thing. I’m a little worried.

  • Bill S

    .

  • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

    Other than some on again, off again swerving into some shared angst about the Fed, help me understand.

    I don’t get it.

  • runner12

    But I have heard the interviews done by others. Almost all of them reported rampant neo-Socialist/Marxis rhetoric and propaganda.. Recently the American Nazi Party has expressed “support” of them. More and more videos show Anti-Semetic rhetoric as well.

    Please understand that I seperate these people from Democrats for the most part. In fact, I am hoping that we may be able to convert some Democrats by pointing out how their party has been hijacked by the radical Left.

    There may be a select few who may be able to be reasoned with out of their committment to Socialism. But that will only come about by the comparing and contrasting I discussed above.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    calling ALL of those by the same label. Labels are mostly useless imho. I think its better simply to quote what they are for and let their own words, rather than our labels define their illogic and vacuousness. Plus it keeps minds open longer that could be swayed and I have heard some of that on Medved’s radio show.

  • YnotNOW

    So we do need to be careful to not blanket-reject all. But we also need to be careful that in the process, we do not water down the rejection of the politics and world-view of the group-leaders.

    Pomote a realistic and attractive ideology and let it be the magnet that attracts people.

  • gracepmc

    in responding to you. IMHO it is not a coinkidink. If you look into the origin of the Occupy movement you see evidence of a fair amount of prior planning. Again, IMHO this is a critical element of Obama’s re election strategy .