Social Question

ETpro's avatar

Is the rising Libertarianism of the US Tea Party Movement's rage going to be self defeating?

Asked by ETpro (34503points) March 21st, 2010

Americans are becoming increasingly angry at and distrustful of the political class. There is no question that the USA is sick, perhaps terminally ill. From the early 1800s to the later 1990s, generation after generation of Americans were optimistic about the future. They believed their children would inherit a better country than they grew up in—that opportunities were boundless and growing, and that the problems we faced would be solved. The last decade has seen an end to that. Today for the first time, surveys are finding more Americans pessimistic than optimistic about the world their children will inherit. This angst has stirred the populist outrage we see in angry fist shaking and ugly signs at Tea Party rallies.

We face public contempt for our leadership and Tea Baggers seem convinced that in the face of 21st century complexity, the ship of state can only avoid the rocks by throwing its captain and crew overboard and letting it pilot itself. Ronald Reagan slashed taxes for the rich from 70% to 28% and debt has been piling up like a mountain ever since, but the Tea Partiers are sure another massive tax cut for the rich will benefit them and cure the debt. The fact is that the top 10% have benefited a little in the past 30 years and the top 1% have gotten vastly more wealthy. The bottom 90% have lost ground, but Tea Partiers are convinced everything wrong with society is due to a transfer of wealth to welfare queens who keep cranking out more brown-skinned babies so they can lounge in government supplied riches instead of working.

Since Reagan said, “Government isn’t the solution to the problem, Government IS the problem.” we have cut 95% of the food inspecting staff from the FDA and food borne illness is back with a vengeance, THe nation’s food safety is now similar to what it was before 1906 when Upton Sinclair wrote The Jungle, his landmark exposé of the horrors and filth of the meat packing industry. We gutted financial regulations put in place when FDR took office in 1933 and began to undo the Great Depression that decades of free-market corporate rapaciousness brought about under Republican rule in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The results included the Savings and loan meltdown, the Hedge Fund meltdown and now the complete financial industry meltdown that sucked 17 trillion dollars out of the economy. It cost us trillions to keep that fiasco from bringing about a second Great Depression. And Tea Partiers want to get rid of any remaining regulations as the solution to that.

Deregulation, smaller government, free market economics and tax reduction are the rallying cries of the populist Tea Party movement. But are the populist proposing a fix for the problems, or are they more like an alcoholic, dying of liver failure and clamoring for more of the medicine that got him so sick in the first place?

There is an interesting Op Ed in today’s New York Times looking at how the working-class town of Liverpool England went through a similar period of malaise and has emerged better for it. But will angry, populist Americans grab the pitchforks and kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, or will they stop and think about what really worked in the past?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

45 Answers

dpworkin's avatar

I think it should be recognized that part of the anger arises from the destabilizing fear that a 400-year-old hierarchy is being overturned, and that the White majority is only years away from becoming one of the many minorities in the US demographic.

The election of an Afro-American president served to highlight the inevitable arrival of what these former cat-bird-seat occupiers must see as a threatening dystopia. No one should be surprised that racial epithets were hurled just yesterday by people presumably demonstrating against health care reform. The sub-rosa agenda sometimes peeks through the facade.

jhbao's avatar

I don’t know about “There is no question that the USA is sick, perhaps terminally ill.” I’m still very optimistic about the country and think it’s the best place to live in the world. But I do agree that some cuts in regulations have been detrimental (e.g. There were 30,000+ inspections by the FDA in 1970, in 2006, there’s about 7000 inspections).

What I don’t understand is the Tea Party, which is primarily composed of the working class and low on the income spectrum. Given that, why does the Tea Party oppose laws and regulations that are meant to help lower income? They complain about lack of jobs but opposes a bill meant to stimulate job creation. They are lossing their jobs and healthcare, but opposes a healthcare bill that will provide health insurance to them.

Why bite the hand that feeds you?

JLeslie's avatar

@jhbao ignorance.

@dpworkin I agree. Originally, I did not think people hated the idea of Obama being black, the people around me are truly terrified that he is Muslim, and did not seem to be using Muslim as a cover word for black. BUT, I do agree that parts of White Christian America is afraid of just becoming one of the many, that they are “losing” the country, losing control.

jaytkay's avatar

About that survey you linked. ”Today for the first time, surveys are finding…”.

That survey is from 1996.

lucillelucillelucille's avatar

I don’t accept your premise that the Tea Party is Libertarian.

HungryGuy's avatar

@jhbao – Yes, @JLeslie is correct. Ignrance. The poor and working classes are the most susceptible to corporate pravda that adequate health care for all is “socialism” and to fear it. Unfortunatelty, it is the corporate executives who are really in charge, and the elected politicians are nothing more than their proxy. The Democrats may talk left-wing, and the Republicans may talk right-wing, but it really makes no significant difference which party is in power, for they’re all pwned by corporate interests.

As for the Libertarians, well, I’m marginally a Libertarian being as I’m in favor of freedom of speech, reproductive rights, marriage rights—and basically legalization of everything between consenting adults. And like Libertarians, I believe in a somewhat conservative approach to economics—save rather than spend, etc. But unlike many Libertarians and other right-wingers, I also think everybody deserves adequate health care and other “socialist” safety nets.

Mamradpivo's avatar

No, but their general lunacy and detachment from reality will.

JLeslie's avatar

@HungryGuy I’m like you. But I call myself a Democrat who tends to be conservative on fiscal matters.

HungryGuy's avatar

@lucillelucillelucille – I hope you’re right. I’m familiar with the Libertarian agenda—liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal issues. And I consider myself a semi-Libertarian. But I’m not an expert on the specifics. Politics doesn’t get me all worked up.

lucillelucillelucille's avatar

@HungryGuy -I garee with your characterization of Libertarians,but I think the Tea Party movement is a cross-section of America from all parties who feel the country has strayed from the Constitution.

ETpro's avatar

@jaytkay I have heard on TV and read several very recent studies that found far more pessimism than the one I cited, but couldn’t find references to them online. I tried several search terms, but couldn’t figure out the right wording to bring them up. Nonetheless, I stand by the statement.

@HungryGuy I share your political leanings.

@lucillelucillelucille You may be right. Many of the Tea Baggers speak of Libertarianism but in the next breath they support control of just about every aspect of social life. THey want to control who can marry who, what a woman can do with her own body, religious indoctrination as part of government action and so on that are light-years apart from true Libertarianism.

JLeslie's avatar

I just had a tea bagger friend tell me on my facebook that the Tea Bag movement has to do with opposing Obamacare and not about taxes. Oy. I started to tell her about the reference to the Boston Tea Party and posted a link to their mission, but then deleted it all. Ignorance.

jaytkay's avatar

The teabaggers are not a cross-section of society They are faux-Independents. It’s a deception, often a self-deception, trying to separate themselves from the catastrophes brought on by the GOP candidates they voted into office.

According to the survey, most Tea Party activists describe themselves as Independents.

But that’s slightly misleading, because 87 percent say they would vote for the GOP candidate in their congressional district if there were no third-party candidate endorsed by the Tea Party,’ Holland said.

Ria777's avatar

oh you guys. imagine Obama dies tomorrow. would they really just high five each other and go away because he has gone? americans have lost faith in government and know that corporations really act as the puppetmasters and have started to see the country’s problems as systemic. 9/11 acted as a distraction from that impression. Hurricane Katrina and the aftermath, though, reversed that to a large degree. stirred up a lot of outrage.

Ria777's avatar

@ETpro: You may be right. Many of the Tea Baggers speak of Libertarianism but in the next breath they support control of just about every aspect of social life.

anarchists have a similar lack of self-consistency.

their favorite issues trumps having a coherent worldview.

Libertarian, by the way, used to mean anarchist.

lucillelucillelucille's avatar

@ETpro -As I stated earlier,I don’t agree with the premise that these would-be Libertarians,as you say,are attempting to control social issues.
I see that they are attempting to conserve the country and the institutions that make up that country they grew up in.They are not trying to change marriage they are trying to conserve marriage.They are not trying to change the definition of abortion or pro-life.They are trying to limit abortion and conserve life.It is the Liberals and the so-called Progressives who are truly trying to control social issues and change these issues for the worse.Essentially,these are Conservatives wheter they be Democrat,Republican or Libertarian.

Ria777's avatar

as a usage snob I want to say that a number of people in this thread have used “ignorance” to mean “willful and arrogant stupidity” versus the historical meaning of ignorant as lacking knowledge.

JLeslie's avatar

@lucillelucillelucille We are not saying Libertarians are trying to control Social Issues. Libertarians support pro-choice, gay marriage, etc. The Right Wing Republicans don’t, and somehow these right wingers who have joined up in the Tea Bag Movement don’t realize the Libertarians are in favor of this stuff. The Tea Bag movement may have started with the Libertarians, but it seems now to be part of the right wing.

lucillelucillelucille's avatar

@JLeslie -“We”??
It wasn’t a Libertarian movement.Don’t kid yourself.
It was the Tea Party Movement,not the perjorative you choose to call it.The Tea Partiers are Conservative,be they Democrat,Republican or Libertarian.Notice I didn’t say Liberal,Progressive,Socialist or Communist.The latter are the subversives.You will not find them amongst the Tea Partiers.

JLeslie's avatar

@Ria777 I used ignorance to mean they do not have all of the information, not that they are stupid.

JLeslie's avatar

@lucillelucillelucille To be honest I think I confused myself lol. Let’s clarify. Are you saying the Libertarians are not trying to control social issues, or that the tea baggers aren’t? If you are saying the Libertarians aren’t, then we agree. But, I think there are many right wing republicans who dont understand the entire platform Libertarians stand on.

ETpro's avatar

@lucillelucillelucille Liberal means
Someone who has liberal views believes people should have a lot of freedom in deciding how to behave and think. ADJ ADJ-GRADED usu ADJ n
She is known to have liberal views on divorce and contraception.
Liberal is also a noun. N-COUNT
...a nation of free-thinking liberals.
A liberal system allows people or organizations a lot of political or economic freedom. ADJ ADJ-GRADED usu ADJ n
...a liberal democracy with a multiparty political system.
They favour liberal free-market policies.
Liberal is also a noun. N-COUNT
These kinds of price controls go against all the financial principles of the free market liberals.
Liberal means giving, using, or taking a lot of something, or existing in large quantities. ADJ ADJ-GRADED
As always he is liberal with his jokes. + ‘with’
She made liberal use of her elder sister’s make-up and clothes.

Progressive means
Someone who is progressive or has progressive ideas has modern ideas about how things should be done, rather than traditional ones. ADJ ADJ-GRADED
Antonym conservative
...a progressive businessman who had voted for Roosevelt in 1932 and 1936.
Willan was able to point to the progressive changes he had already introduced.
The children go to a progressive school.
A progressive is someone who is progressive. N-COUNT
Antonym conservative
The Republicans were deeply split between progressives and conservatives.

I find it deeply offensive that you chose to label liberals and progressives as socialists and communists. I believe people who spread such lies fall into the category of fascist in their political action. As Sinclair Lewis warned, “When fascism comes to America, it will be draped in the flag and carrying a cross.”

jaytkay's avatar

The same people and there ilk were hysterical when Clinton was in office. Somehow economic prosperity and budget surpluses under Democrats escape their notice. Every Republican administration since Gerald Ford set new records for deficit spending, but people shriek about “tax and spend Democrats”.

Teabaggers are Republicans (despite their claims) who can’t come to grips with the reality that conservative policies wrecked the economy, the budget and American’s world standing.

They can admit they were wrong, or they can have a public tantrum because reality does not agree with what they “know” from AM radio and FOX.

PandoraBoxx's avatar

The people that I know who are in the Tea Party Movement are middle to upper income white people, whose children are grown, and who have stable jobs and have managed to amass sufficient assets. They don’t send their children to public schools, ride public transportation or seem to have had significant health issues. They live outside the system.

lucillelucillelucille's avatar

@ETpro -Pragmatic Socialists attempt to redfine terms to fit their immediate political needs.
To the pragmatist,terms mean nothing.The ends justify the means.In the 30’s Socialists labelled themselves Liberals and proclaimed broad,sweeping social plans that were to bring America to a Socialist utopia.Now the term “Liberal“has been rejected and demonized because of it’s bankrupt ideology.Now the Liberals have been forced to re-name themselves “Progressives” to a new generation.
No one is buying it.
There are no “Progressives” in the Tea Party movement.The Tea Party movement is a rejection of the Liberal ,Socialist,“Progressive”,pragmatic,altruist agenda.

lucillelucillelucille's avatar

@JLeslie -All political movements,parties,etc, are there to monitor societal change.Yes,Libertarians are more individula oriented.
The reason Republicans ,Libertarians,and Democrats attend Tea Party movements is because they all fear the threat posed to the Constitution by the present administration and leaders in Congress.

ETpro's avatar

@lucillelucillelucille Pragmatic Socialist are the ones doing the redefining??? You are too funny. The definitions I supplied came from the dictionary, not some political spin master as Republican definitions so often do. Liberal is a good word as is conservative. But Republicans have been on a crusade to demonize the word since they first wrecked the economy in the Great Depression and FDR got voted into office. They have largely succeeded in the minds of those who believe right-wing media propaganda such as Fox and hate radio like Rush.

Label it any way you like, FDR reversed the disastrous course the Republicans had set that led to the Great Depression. The post-war economic boom that resulted led to the creation of the current-day middle class and the longest generally robust economy in US history. We were paying down the debt, creating plenty of new millionaires and building an ever more powerful middle class (there hadn’t even been one before FDR) till Republicans got their hands back on the wheels of power for an extended time and, beginning with Reagan, ushered in the days of deregulation; don’t tax, just spend; and debt piled to the rafters.

All your socialism/communism name calling will not erase the clear record of who pays down the deficit and builds a strong middle class (mostly Democrats) and who runs up the debt and funnels money from the middle class to the wealthy and the corporations (Republicans). See

lucillelucillelucille's avatar

@ETpro -Socialists have been re-defining themselves since the Bolshevik Revolution.The modern day incarnation are the “Progressives” who are throwing off the Liberal tag.A wolf in sheep’s clothing,if you will.Enough with the history lessons.
This is the age old struggle of Capitalism versus Socialism.Conservative versus Liberal,and producers versus second-handers.There is a common thread I have found that runs through all your posts in this regard and that is Class Envy and an altruistic redistribution mentality.Calling oneself a “Progressive” won’t hide your ideology.

ETpro's avatar

@lucillelucillelucille Communism and socialism are not the same thing. Socialism is government ownership of the means of production and distribution of wealth. In other words, it means that the government owns all industry, farming, mining and banking. The USA is not a socialist country and it never will be. You could count on one hand the number of our citizens who want our government to own everything.

Almost all Capitalist nations around the world today have social programs their government oversees. That does not make them socialistic societies. They are capitalistic. Most of the means of production and most of the banking are in private hands and will stay that way.

You mentioned preserving marriage as it always was (although it has varied widely over time) and preserving prejudice against homosexuals as it always was (although it too has changed over time) and even preserving business as it was in the wonderful days of the robber barons as if this somehow is a wondrous, virtuous goal. I see no magical perfection in rolling back the wheels of time. Where to? Just back to the days of slavery? Why not back to the Dark Ages? If conservatism actually meant never changing anything, we humans would still be living in caves and bashing each other in the head with stones.

Conservatism means preferring, when possible, tried-and-true solutions to untried ideas. I am an actual conservative. The only time I prefer new ideas is when old ways aren’t working, or new-unlaced challenges arise. I am a small business owner. I am not a taker. I am a producer. So are the people who work for me, even though they own no business of their own.

Those people who have preempted the name “conservative” want to take us back to Dickensian England with its work houses and slums of hopeless poverty and early death for the working poor. Remember Tiny Tim? His crime wasn’t laziness. It was being born into the class of the working poor.

Those who want owners rated above workers are either middle class or poor who are deluded by right-wing propaganda or they are the wealthy elite who want even more wealth and won’t be happy till they have it all. It is that elite that pull the strings of the New Republican conservatism and their media propagandists like Rush and Hannity and Ann Coulter.

They are not conservatives, they are radicals. They want to throw out the tried and true solutions of the last 100 years and adopt instead ways that didn’t even work well hundreds of years ago and would be disastrous in the 21st century. I’m not buying that movement! I am advocating against it. You are welcome to argue for it, but not by rewriting history and the dictionary to serve your cause.

galileogirl's avatar

While there wasn;t much in the follow up that had anything to do with the main question and it was more of a popular wisdom rant than anything grounded in reality, I will answer the main question.

There is a great divide between most Libertarians and Tea Partyites. While I don’t agree with Libertarians, they couch their arguments in intellectual/academic/logical terms. The same can;t be said for Tea Party protests which seem to be beyond the bounds of logic (fascist and socialist??) and even beyond the bounds of sanity (playing cowboy and calling the president Hitler) While they may walk side by side in a demonstration to build up their numbers, if they ever sit down together to organize a political party with a platform-it won’t last past the coffee and doughnuts.

ETpro's avatar

@galileogirl I really regret putting the word Libertarian in the question, as I did them a disservice. I can’t edit it now, but I can say it was a poor choice of words.

semblance's avatar

I see the Tea Party as mostly stealing votes from Republicans. I seriously doubt that many Tea Party advocates would ever have voted Democratic anyway, although I’d be interested if anybody has any statistics on how many Tea Party people claim past affiliation with the Democratic Party..

lucillelucillelucille's avatar

@ETpro Again we see that Pragmatism is the currency of the realm. Do not kid yourself about the nature of Socialism and Communism. Socialism may be established by vote, as with Nazi (National Socialist) Germany-or by force as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The extent of Socialization may be total, as in Russia or partial, as in your “Dickensian England”. The degree of Socialization is the degree of destruction. Both of these ideologies share the same basic principle and that is the denial of property rights i.e., individual rights. Individual rights do not exist without property rights.

It is always the pragmatic Socialist or collectivist who tries to claim a group right,something that does not exist. “Those who want owners rated above workers are either middle class or poor”. You consistently speak in terms of group rights As with your feeble example of “Conservatives preserving prejudice against Homosexuals” by denying gay marriage. This shows a lack of understanding of what a Right is.

Rights can only be held as individuals and therefore there is no such thing as a group right. Only in the mind of the pragmatist or collectivist is this possible. A Right is an action that requires no sanction. Unfortunately if Homosexuals wish to be married they must first gain sanction by the state. therefore they have no right to marriage unless granted by the Collective. If the state wrote law holding the right of the individual paramount this would not be an issue. Your basic most fundamental right is the right to your own life i.e., your property.
It is the Socialist who would deny the right of the “prejudiced conservative” to be prejudiced. Individuals are prejudiced for and against things in their daily lives on a constant basis. Individuals have that right and do not require the states permission to do so. Without the right to be prejudiced one could not survive.

It is the Socialist or Collectivist who would deny an individuals right to their own wrong headed prejudice and pass laws against so called hate crimes. Making one person’s life more valuable than another’s. Just like Animal Farm where everyone is equal, it is just that some are more equal than others. It is these Republican/Democrat/Libertarian tea party conservatives who are conserving the constitutional rights of the individual and not the group right bestowing collectivists we have running the Administration and congress today

jaytkay's avatar

So to recap:
—Gays can’t marry because they are a group. AKA collectivist socialists
—Straights, in contrast, are individuals, with rights
—People who are not prejudiced are bigots


ETpro's avatar

@jaytkay I think that and the fact that anyone who is pragmatic (meaning they favor things that work) is a socialist communist Nazi

@lucillelucillelucille RWNJs often claim that only pure laissez-faire capitalism works. However, in the few places it has actually been tried, it resulted in authoritarian dictatorships propped up by a tiny oligarchy who soon gained control of all the money in the land. It builds banana republics. If you really thnk a banana republic would suit you better, why not just move to one. There are plenty already in place, and you are not likely to convince enough of your fellow Americans to vote for one to get what you want here.

The democracies and democratic republics of the world all have significant social programs but private ownership of nearly all the means of production and distribution of wealth. The USA, Canada, THe EU and on and on use progressive tax systems yet plenty of people find opportunity in those countries to become wealthy. In the US, the transfer of wealth since Ronald Reagan has been flowing just opposite of what you think. The poor and now even the middle class have lost wealth. The top 10% have gained some. The top 1% have gained lots. If we stay on that track too long, we will destroy what we all oloved about this nation.

Now I don’t know you from Adam. Perhaps you are one of the wealthiest people in America and therefore find it perfectly reasonable to argue that you need much more help from the government to get what money is left in the hands of the working poor. But if you are in the working class and you are pushing for a plan to drain your what you have away in order to support the rich.

Show me one example of a country with no social welfare programs at all, a flat tax od sales tax instead of a progressive tax, laissez-faire capitalism and a strong middle class and I will consider your argument. But you can’t do that, because there are countries that meet all those criteria, but they are all Hell holes.

lucillelucillelucille's avatar

@jaykay-“Once more this time with feeling”
“Gays” can marry. They just need a sanctioning body to permit the marriage.
“Straights” can marry. they just need a sanctioning body to permit the marriage.
Again: A Right is an action which requires no sanction. Marriage is not a right because it requires a sanctioning body i.e., the State or Church to contract with. Individuals are free to contract with whoever they will, provided both parties enter into the contract freely. no man has the Right to impose an unchosen obligation.
A Right can only be posessed as an individual so there is no such thing as a collective right.
Rights are inalienable and can never be taken only violated by force.
And as for prejudiced. Don’t limit your use of the term to only the obvious and one dimensional. We pre-judge every day and in all situations. It is the judicious use of our experential education which allows us to survive on a daily basis. One could possibly have a prejudiced oppinion towards a certain ideology, does that make one an idealogical “bigot”?

JLeslie's avatar

@lucillelucillelucille You wrote Individuals are free to contract with whoever they will except when it comes to the marriage contract, in most states they impose a gender specific requirement.

ETpro's avatar

@lucillelucillelucille Boy do you keep bouncing around. No example of a flat-tax, laissez-faire zone of perfection, hey. I didn’t think you would come up with one. Haiti, by the way, is one place that has that system firmly in place, and has for years. If you truly think it’s perfect, that’s not a long move and I hear property there is real cheap now..

So instead of taking up that question, we’re off to lies about same-sex marriage. OK. The US Constitution says we all should get equal protection under the law. That means what’s fair for you should be fair for me, and for everybody else unless they do something to lose their rights.

In most states, same-sex partners cannot marry. They can go to a state that allows them to, but their home state will not recognize the benefits marriage bestows to each partner. For instance, unlike heterosexual partners, they cannot even visit their partner in the hospital or have legal say in their care. They do not have the right to take family leave if their partner is seriously ill. They cannot petition for a foreign partner to emigrate to the USA. They do not have the right to assume parenting rights and responsibilities when children are brought into a family through birth, adoption, surrogacy or other means. There are no laws covering dissolution of their relationship or disposition of jointly held wealth or property. In the event their partner dies without a will, they have no claim to the estate. They are denied family-related Social security benefits, income and estate tax benefits, disability benefits, family-related military and veterans benefits and other important benefits.They do not have the right to purchase continued healthcare coverage for a partner after loss of a job.

These aren’t corporate rights. They are individual rights enjoyed by married heterosexuals in every state and denied to same-sex partners in most. Some are denied to same-sex partners in all states. This is a stacked deck where the majority, straight, sets better rules for themselves than for a minority, gays.

I wish your Republican friends believed as you that rights can only be possessed by individuals. The Republican packed Supreme Court just found that the 1st Amendment right to free speech applies to corporations, and while Democrats are trying to find some way to undo that Constitutional perversion, Republicans are lining up to ensure Corporations have rights previously reserved only to individuals ever since the Bill of Rights was ratified. Not to mention all the rights corporations already have that individuals do not, like protection from personal liability and retention of personal assets for officers in bankruptcies, even when the officers negligence produced the default.

Ron_C's avatar

I find the whole tea party phenomena ironic. The rich have the middle class and poor fighting their fight. The very people that should be concerned that we have a fair and free economic system, proper health care and regulations, access to education, and economic opportunity are actually fighting against them. The gullibility of the average American is amazing. Some day, like the Bush supporters, they will wake up and feel very ashamed of themselves.

By the way Reagen was the Anti FDR. Where FDR overcame his elitist roots and worked to save America, Reagen overcame his working class roots and worked to destroy our country and turn it over to international corporations. In that light, Reagen will someday be seen as the greatest traitor to this country and the father of our downfall.

ETpro's avatar

I already see Reagan that way, @Ron_C. He stopped a long history of paying down our debt, and instead launched it into the stratosphere. Almost all the tax reduction he gave us went to people who were already billionaires. In the time since he cut the top tax rate by 60%, billionaires in America have doubled their hold on the nation’s total wealth. It has come from the middle and working class, whose position has actually gotten worse over the past decade—the first time that has happened since the Great Depression.

I don’t love taxes any more than the Tea Party crowd does. But I dislike massive debt and social inequity even more than I do paying my fair share to have a decent countryu to live in.

Ron_C's avatar

@ETpro I see this country as a kind of a club. Taxes are your membership fee and we are supposed to throw out the “board members” that waste our money. The problem is that the majority re-elects them. On top of that, the rich members insure that their representatives stay in office.

We now have an elitist lead country. The supreme court even validated that by granting “person hood” to corporations. That’s is like making vampires citizens. They can’t be killed, the live for as long as they desire, and the individual parts are immune from prosecution and apparently conscience.

ETpro's avatar

@Ron_C Yes, we have a very serious problem with rising corporatocracy, and it will only get worse with the right-wing dominated Supreme Court deciding that corporations have the same first-amendment rights as individual people. Talk about wild judicial activism, that is it in spades. Apparently judicial activism is only offensive to Republicans if it helps little people. It’s fine if it funnels more money to our endangered billionaires.

Dr_Dredd's avatar

@ETpro Or fetuses…

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther