SS defends Wall Street and blames government:
Yes I agree with both have wrong opposing ideas but, the Tea Party really had a broad based beginning and the Occupy folks are the orchestrated result of Big Union and (y)our “friends” at the Globalist Communist Party that is stirring up strife worldwide to bring down Capitalism and the West.
You know that Wall Street needed bailed out because of political pressure on the banking system to make loans to low income people that had no chance of paying them back. The resulting trading in bundled toxic securities was just a way for Bankers to spread the risk with Our government winking at the practice.
The social architects are the problem not Wall Street. The spending spree of social engineering has brought us to ruin. The government has borrowed and printed money and pushed for more of it into the economy to hide the fact that we no longer manufacture anything, we have exported all the good paying jobs.
What we are left with is a hollow shell of a service economy that is propped up by government spending and borrowing from a country that has taken all the jobs. The Tea Party has it right… it is a over-reaching Federal Bureaucracy that needs to be reigned in to it’s Constitutional boundaries and not what the anarchists Occupiers wanting to punish the successful want us to believe.
The problem is “Big” Government and the social engineering globalists that run amuck in positions of power in media and political parties!…………..
Marty denies that the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street are two sides of the same coin:
Two sides of the same coin? Are you nuts? I have been reading you columns mostly with great frustrations for 10 years now but this one takes the cake. You have either stopped reading or stopped thinking one of the two. I know of no tea partier that is for the wars ALL 6 of them! I know they all support our troops and will not denigrate them in times of war. But they are just as anxious to be home as anyone. The WS protesters want full blown communism and the tea party seeks a very limited and constitutional form of government. Is that two sides of the same coin? How about the tea party seeks limited and more fair taxes on everyone and not the confiscation of wealth from the wealthy. Is that same coin? The tea party wants no form whatsoever of socialized medicine and privatization of Medicare and social security. Is that two sides of the same coin? That fact of the matter is you refuse to admit the libertarian party and their philosophy is simply nutty to put it mildly. Very little of your political philosophy on how government should run would work and most of the folks know it which is why we reject your nutty libertarian junk. You are deliberately running a disinformation campaign against the tea party by linking them with Washington republicans. I will grant you one thing, the republican party is a natural home for the Tea Party; there is however no friendship between the Washington Republican establishment and the tea party. Each wishes the other gone. You know this and yet you link them like a two headed beast. If you wrote an article and said the republican Washington establishment and the WS protesters were two sides of the same coin, I would have said you were correct. In fact all the things you ascribe to tea partiers can rightly be ascribed to moderate RINO’s in Washington. The tea party did not support the extra spending. Politics is a game of wills and the simple truth is there are some battles you are going to win and some you will lose. The question in the end is what has been achieved and if the tea party gains prominence the county will be much better off. Your stupid party can’t figure out whether drugs should be legal, what’s wrong with abortion, the correct role of government and on and on. The fact of the matter is libertarianism leads to anarchy. That’s is the other side of your coin!!
Meanwhile, David isn’t inclined to let the Tea Party off the hook:
And don’t forget the Tea Party probably passed the three new job killing Free Trade pacts, too. Nobody gives a damn about saving our Middle Class factory jobs.
I responded to Marty thusly: You’re factually wrong. Not all, but most of the Tea Party-endorsed Republicans voted for the $1.299 budget deficit as well as for raising the debt ceiling. It’s also telling that you don’t give OWS the same benefit of the detail that you give the Tea Party. Both activist groups are rather stupid and incoherent… and both activist groups are correct at the deepest level. This is natural, since both are popular movements, which generally are not known for their intellectual precision. And they are two sides of the same coin, as both groups have correctly identified one-half of the problem. Unfortunately, both groups are also inclined to defend the other half of the problem.
Which is why as long as you subscribe to the Tea Party Good, Occupy Wall Street Bad mentality, you will be serving the purposes of the Washington-Wall Street axis.
Marty responded as follows:
You’re correct to link Wall Street and Washington. You’re the first and only person I have seen make this connection. But you are completely incorrect about the Tea Party and its connection to Wall Street. The tea party is the production of moderate republicans voting for Wall Street bail-out. That and health care reform. The Tea party was 100% against the bailout hence its existence. We wanted the companies to go bankrupt. And you cannot even begin to say that McCain’s running back to Washington to vote for the bailout didn’t hurt him big time. We cannot stand the republicans running this country in to the ground via WS albeit at a slower rate than the democrats via wealth confiscation.
There were 100 new Republicans voted in to congress in 2009. 54 voted against the current budget. That’s the majority of tea party Republicans the way I see it. Had you made that point in your article, you would have severely weakened your argument to the reader. You said “most” making it sound like 60% or more when in fact it was in the 40’s percent. I admit I am not always right but on this you are trying to paint a picture out of what you wish was true but it’s not.
To which I responded: You’re not counting correctly. Not all of the new Republicans were Tea Party-endorsed and not all the incumbents were not Tea Party-endorsed. Again, you are factually incorrect.
Of course, even if only 40% of the Tea Party-endorsed Congressman had been successfully corrupted within 12 months of their election, it would suffice to prove that the Tea Party strategy will not succeed.