blackduckdog2 wrote:There were Democrats out here who hooked up with the Tea Party too. Contrary to the strawman argument continually put forth on the right, liberals have no use for intrusive government either, but unlike the right (especially the Tea Party right) they recognize that the forces aligned against the common man (in economic terms) these days is going to require a fairly hefty government response. I know the right wants to believe that the free market will solve everything, but who's going to keep it free? Why were virtually ALL of the Tea Party's responses to the economic meltdown aimed at the Obama administration and virtually NONE at the perpetrators? WHY was there no demonstration on Wall Street? (if there had been, OWS might never have happened) I'm sorry, but their rabid government hating, to the irrational exclusion of any other danger else turns a lot of people off.
I think that you've bought into the media narrative of the TP as well. You have concocted a position(s) for the TP that doesn't really exist. As Inda pointed out, the TP movement was originally a reaction to TARP. Indeed, the TP was indeed very angry with Wall Street for their shenanigans; so much so that they wanted those businesses and banks to fail. However, their anger extended to Washington more so. They were incensed that Washington was bailing out the private sector. The TP realized that WS made risky and imprudent business decisions but did nothing illegal. That is where the TP and Occupy part ways. Occupy wants to protest capitalism for the sake of hating capitalism. Occupy doesn't give a hoot that the "evil doers" on WS did absolutely nothing illegal. There was no rhyme or reason to Occupy's protests other than it sees capitalism as evil and wants it abolished.
The TP realizes that WS is in the business of making money and operates in a regulatory system that sets the business environment in which they earn their money, i.e. Washington creates the rules and sets many of the incentives. You know of the fable of the scorpion and the frog? A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The frog asks, "How do I know you won't sting me?" The scorpion says, "Because if I do, I will die too." The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream, the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown, but has just enough time to gasp "Why?"
Replies the scorpion: "Its my nature..."
Most of the TP's anger is focused on those they see as the root of the problem, Washington. They understand that WS is in the business of making money. WS will learn to earn money anyway it can in the regulatory environment in which it finds itself. Wall Street is the scorpion. You can't blame it for its nature. The TP rightly sees over-regulation, crony-capitalism and downright corruption as the biggest threat to the financial well-being of this country. They correctly recognize that business (WS) does not make the rules and incentives; they only operated within the environment created by Washington. How do you change this environment? One must change Washington. The TP sees Washington's ever expanding reach into the business community, be it WS regulation, taxes, healthcare, etc. as stifling economic liberty, growth and prosperity. I think the last 6 years have proven them correct. I won't even touch on personal liberty.
I would also disagree with you about capitalism not being able to solve the current problem. It most certainly would. Capitalism dictates that this problem would not happen again if the government would've allowed the businesses to fail that should've failed. The books would've cleared and other businesses wouldn't commit the same mistakes as those that failed for survival's sake. This is the way of capitalism. It has worked every time in the past. There is no reason to believe it wouldn't have worked this time. There was no need for a "hefty" government response. It was the government response that actually made the crisis worse; responses by both GWB and Barry, to be fair.
You've also distorted the TP's position on government's role in the marketplace to the extreme, as portrayed by the media. The position is that government's role in the marketplace should be as small as possible; not that it shouldn't exist. It should act as soley to ensure transparency, stop monopolistic activity, stop activities such as insider trading, etc. Washington's role should be only to ensure a healthy marketplace exists by way of no companies cheating.
Why would the TP protest private sector business on WS? It's absurd that they should do this. WS did nothing illegal. WS does not create policy. There is absolutely nothing to gain by doing this. If you want change, change Washington.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.