Politics Why don't the Tea Partiers get arrested?

On this point, I simply say we should listen to the people being impacted - small and medium size business owners/potential entrepreneurs/people seeking capital to hire people/etc. The message is being communicated, but those in power are not listening.

 

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105

this is a short little article from vanity fair that talks about the grotesque distribution of wealth that's been triggered almost entirely by conservative economic policy since the reagan period. it talks about some of the effects of that distribution of wealth. it talks briefly--because that's all that is required---about what a joke "trickle-down" is and has been. strangely, many of the points in this piece sound like the points that ace wants to make in his special imaginary alternate world into the responsibility of whatever he takes "government" to mean--so far, in all the bouts of ace shooting bursts of the same circular, data-free non-arguments, all i've learned is that in ace's special place, government mostly means "bad. i don't like it."-

 

Your article referenced the Robber Baron era of the early 19th Century - wealth inequality is not a new concept either in the US since the Reagan era, a new concept in the context of human history before the US, or even in the context of any one particular economic or political system.

In addition we have seen a chart that showed an increasing disparity trend in the US starting in the 60's - a trend I correlate to the war on poverty. The rich have always been generally motivated to generate more wealth - what I think happened is that on the bottom end some people have lost the motivation or incentive to generate wealth, I attribute it to the "nanny state".

 

of course you do, ace. reality be damned. actual material history be damned. if you at least had an attractive fantasy world, maybe this would be interesting. but it's just an orthodox version of exactly what's failed over the past 30 years repeated over and over in the form of tautologies and stupid counterfactuals, digressions and threadjacks. that it's worthless as an analysis of the world beyond your immediate experience (because you believe) is given. that it's boring is inexcusable.

 

When you write the above is when I get lost in your argument. I think the government has an impact on the economy - in particular on marginal economic activity. The normal business cycle includes recessions - government policy can make them worse and lengthen them or in the short-term make them better and minimize them. Your statement suggests you disagree.

 

I gave a very specif response to a point you made that I think is incorrect. How am I damning reality?

Are you suggesting the Robber Barron period did not happen?
Are you suggesting wealth disparity is unique to the post Reagan era?
Are you suggesting wealth disparity is unique to the US version of capitalism?

What? What?? are you saying. Be specific.
--- merged: Oct 6, 2011 9:07 PM ---

I detest corporate welfare. Government should not support some businesses at the expense of others or consumers.

I have no problem with government seeking to help poor or disadvantaged people. I think the current way of doing it is all wrong and presents too many disincentives for people to do better on their own.

I don't support renters subsidizing home owner interest tax deductions.
I don't support the government giving some people grants to go to school at the expense of others.
I don't support cigarette taxes paying for child health care - make it a general tax and cover every child.
I don't support tax credits for people buying electric cars.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
Basically stuff were the government is trying to encourage behavior where they think it is best for the individual. Tax policy should reflect the actual cost to provide government services, not for social engineering or picking winners at the expense of others for whatever the reason.

One big one I need to add is minimum wage legislation - it has devastated entry in the work force for unskilled inner-city youth.

 

If social responsibility is strictly a private morality matter, how do you square that with your opinion that the government should provide assistance to the elderly, children and the "truly" disabled?

What law are you talking about?

And who is talking about living under anyone's definition of social responsibility? I was referring to the lack of social conscience shown by those for profit institutions who have taken up the mantle to provide need based, social services. Institutions which have kept the profit element their sole focus. No one forced it on them, in fact, they seemed more than willing to take it on.

The fact that they've failed to adequately provide for the needs they were entrusted with is not the fault of those forced to deal with their failures, much as the Tea Party believes it to be so.

Seems you're twisting in the wind on quite a few fronts here.

 

Ace, maybe you can help me out here.

I've been looking for a list of policies, originating from the Obama administration, which can shed some light on why small business is so pissed off at him. I'm not having much luck and feel sure you probably have one. Would be kind enough to share it with me?

 

You folks should marvel at my incredible insight, an insight from simply talking to people and observation. Early in October I shared something from a real conversation pasted with some other interactions with Tea Party people (post 17 on 10/4):

Now we hear that Ben and Jerry's is supporting the Occupy Wall Street protests:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/08/ben-jerrys-occupy-wall-street_n_1001469.html

This is why you won't see Ben and Jerry's being served at a Tea Party event!

But I suspect even liberals should find some things odd about this.

*we are talking about a company that is part of a bigger global conglmorate that is worth pretty near $100 billion dollars.
*we are talking about a company that has a primary target customer that has to be in the 6 figure income range. My wife and I went to a Ben and Jerry's once, looked at the menu and saw that it would cost us about $12 for a couple of cones - we promptly walked out and went to a local place that had soft-serve cones for $1 each - imagine a family of 4, spending what some may spend on a weeks worth of food - for ice-cream cones!
*we are talking about a company with a parent company that has operating profit margins of about 15%.
*Oh, do we know anything about Ben and Jerry's wages and benefit packages - I bet we never asked, have we!

I guess image is everything, as long as people don't ask questions.

Power to the people.

 

actually, ace, i've met ben several times. i know quite a lot about the political viewpoint he and other business people who work with him support. i know what their policy about executive compensation was before and after the unilever buyout. i don't see what your point could possibly be, unless it's some nitwit attempt to cast ben & jerry's as somehow...i don't even know. your post is so incoherent that i can't figure out what you're getting at.

 

The company was sold for $326 million to one of the largest corporate consumer products conglomerate in the world. On the surface we have the old Ben and Jerry's image and it is just that an image. Dig a bit deeper, all you have is a big Wall St. firm with big profit margins set up to serve rich consumers with a product of little value to the human race on this planet. I argue that Wal-Mart does more good for more people - in particular low income consumers. Ben and Jerry's is a for profit business, has always been a for profit business and has simply nurtured a niche to justify extremely high prices and profit margins for their product.

 

ace, that's ridiculous. the unilever sale was and is a matter of public record. it caused ben to leave the company because unilever didn't want to adhere to the narrow gap between employee and ceo salaries that ben & jerry's was built around as a business model. but even so, both ben and the company have been quite active supporters of progressive political causes and sustainable agricultural practices both nationally and internationally.

as for the pricing at the retail end--i can't imagine that a markety market guy such as yourself could object to anything, as your abject relation to market ideology forces you to accept anything and everything from the captains of industry.

so why this sudden inconsistency...o wait, i know: this is yet another rehearsal of cheap conservative talking points.

 

Those unemployed folks protesting Wall St. can not afford Ben and Jerry's ice cream - I bet it is being served in some of those high-rise corporate buildings serving those greedy fat-cats. I just find it oh, so, duplicitous that it has me laughing. But I realize few, if any here, share my sense of humor.
--- merged: Oct 11, 2011 7:41 PM ---

So now you defend corporate greed! Tell me about the conspiracy that forced them to become a Wall St. firm and then to sell out - fully knowing what would happen. I bet the check was cashed.
--- merged: Oct 11, 2011 7:43 PM ---

Different people protest for different reasons, some expressed and some implied - and if the core is not about excessive profits it is not about anything.

 

ace, if you want to know how the buyout happened, look it up. there's a lot of information available about it. i can't imagine the world you live in where what you're saying amounts to a point of any interest.

 

When I was talking to a Tea Party person and he was going on about how Ben and Jerry's was too liberal and that he would not buy their product but was going to get some Breyers, I simply thought to myself that it was odd and that he most likely did not know they both shared the same parent company. It made me smile, but i did not make an issue of it. I saw the Ben and Jerry's news release about the Wall St. protests and I simply thought to myself that it was odd and that most of the people who see the release most likely do not know that Ben and Jerry's is a "Wall St." firm. It made me smile. Then I thought of you and i thought, I bet I can make Roach go ballistic....the rest speaks for itself...go have some Ice cream...tell us what brand you choose...ever think that ice cream would have political implications