Sunday, 10/30/11, Public Square

5 Comments

Filed under The Public Square

5 responses to “Sunday, 10/30/11, Public Square

  1. I’ve said this before, I think the original idea of the Tea Party was a good one – less taxes and less government.

    But just being less does not mean it is a good thing. When I use the term ‘less taxes’ – I mean I want my taxes to be used wisely. If that means we could do without those trillions in unnecessary and obsolete military war machines – then so be it. And lower my taxes while you’re at it. And for God’s sake – let’s stop fighting wars just to enrich these corporations with no-bid contracts in foreign lands where we know they do not like us.

    And ‘less government’ means – to me – that attacking a problem by throwing more money at it or writing up cumbersome regulations just to give someone in government a job – that is wrong also – IMHO.

    But the original Tea Party was hijacked by the Billionaire Brothers and Dick Armey – a Washington insider politician in that Trojan Horse – The Tea Party Express.

    I consider myself a fiscal conservative, social liberal person. I also suspect that is where the broad ‘middle’ is in our political landscape.

    Which is why I think the OWS protest movement should broaden their scope and now include Congress and the White House in their protests.

    As we saw from economy collapse of 2008 under GWB, government regulations (or the lack of enforcement) played a major factor in all that mess.

    As usual, the Republicans are still calling for no regulations and all the taxpayer-funded subsidies and special tax breaks for those folks who brought our country to its economic collapse.

    But yet I don’t hear one word from the current Tea Party about these folks spending us into oblivion.

    I included the White House in my broad scope of the OWS protests because I think Obama has too many of those Wall Street fat cats in his working club – Tim Geithner, Larry Summers, Bill Daley to name a few. These guys have been involved in Wall Street for a long, long time – IIRC.

    If WE the PEOPLE really do own our government, then we need to wake up and smell the tea bags that have gone rancid.

    • Asher Bob White

      Nobody “owns” the government. That’s silly and it is why an aristocracy (wealth & corp.) is both ugly and unacceptable. We all accept that the aristocracy currently “own” it, one way or another.
      Further, the Tea Party is mostly just silly and foolish citizens who are very easy to misinform and fooled by the same aristocracy They want their “own government,” too, not better government.
      Finally, what we all (national & state) need is simply “better government.” And we’ll never get it when capitalists own and control it. The only way to change it is to limit every office holder to one term, i.e., never re-elect anybody. Rely upon common, first-time office-holders (citizens) and their honest mistakes which can soon be corrected at the very next election. No more professionals who get rich and corrupted by holding elected office for many terms.

      • When I used the term ‘own’ – I meant that our government should be Of the People, For the People and By the People.

        But isn’t it ironic that the Founding Fathers, who were wealthy landowners themselves and were the only ones allowed to vote, actually had the concept of a country where every person had a vote in how their government is run?

        Even using the term ‘better government’ can present problems.

        Because the Tea Party Republicans’ definition of ‘better government’ would not be mine.

        But I do agree with you that the corporatization of our government is not a good thing.

        But, as we have seen, the SCOTUS granted corporations personhood and, therein, lies the problem.

      • But every person didn’t have a vote under the Constitution. Not only do we have a representative vote, where someone “we” elected votes for us, but for well over a century women didn’t vote. Then there was the Black vote.

      • That is the ironic part I was talking about – these wealthy landowners were the the only ones with a vote – but yet they held on to this concept of a representative government by each person having a vote.

        WTH….

        I grew up with this romanticized vision of one person – one vote. But yet as I learned from the real history books (not those rewritten history books these Conservative Republicans are trying to push on to people) – that ther Founding Fathers were full of contradictions.

        IMHO – The women having to clean up after those Founding Fathers should have been the ones in charge of setting up the government. I suspect we would have a totally different looking government.