Sunday, March 18, 2012
Solidarity Now, Me-Chumps
I've decided, folks, I'm going to start a new union, and I'm going to call it the "Picketers Union". I'm going to organize all of those poor homeless bastards that the carpenters' unions are currently using (in some instances, paying UNDER the minimum wage) to do their dirty work (essentially walking around in a circle and shouting out spoon-fed epithets and talking-points) and see if I can get them a little bit fairer shake, for Christ....I mean, somebody's got to make sure that they're not taken advantage of, right? RIGHT?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
These fake strikes are truly an example of astroturf.
dmarks said... These fake strikes are truly an example of astroturf.
Astroturf is an attempt to manipulate public opinion through disinformation while hiding who is really behind the campaign.
This definitely is NOT an example of astroturf. It does not fit the definition. I'd call this "protest by proxy".
The Tea Party movement is the REAL astroturf... because it is big money interests spreading disinformation through the use of uninformed dupes who wrongly believe they are representing their own interests (who's interests are really being represented is hidden).
In the case of the union protests (which aren't "fake"), everyone still knows that it's the unions protesting. And the information (why the protest is taking place) is based on facts, not disinformation. It's not at all the same.
Also, another anti-union post? When was Will's last anti-big business post? Has there ever even been ONE?
As I recall Will once wrote a post about Wal-mart... but wait, it was to DEFEND Wal-mart... so, nope... I can't think of even one.
In fact, it's my recollection that Will recently called a movement representing working people stupid.
Astroturf is actually an effort to fake a grass roots movements. Strikes are supposed to be workers protesting. Not paid sign wavers. But I agree that "protest by proxy" fits much better.
"The Tea Party movement is the REAL astroturf..."
Not at all. I observed the movement as it formed in my area. It had nothing to do with big money interests.
"...big money interests spreading disinformation through the use of uninformed dupes..."
By "misinformation", you mean stuff that you don't agree with. And the activists I met and discussed things with were quite well informed and civically aware.
"And the information (why the protest is taking place) is based on facts, not disinformation. It's not at all the same."
It's only "facts" because you agree with it. It is ideological correct for you.
dmarks: By "misinformation", you mean stuff that you don't agree with...
No, I'm talking about actual misinformation.
dmarks: And the activists I met and discussed things with were quite well informed...
I'm sure the activists you claim you met were extremely well informed regarding what the conservative talking points are. That doesn't mean they weren't protesting against policies that would benefit them.
wd, I wrote one post on Walmart in which I enumerated both the positives AND the negatives and in which I determined Walmart to be on balance a slight net plus. If this in your mind is an example of me "DEFENDING Walmart", then, yes, I guess that I've defended Walmart.............As for the content of THIS post, I find what these carpenters unions are doing to be loathsome on at least several grounds. a) They're using these poor individuals as pawns in some hackneyed political power play (the hypocrisy of it just flat-out reeks) and b) the fact that they're making $20-24 an hour (more than I make as a coordinator) and still bitching and moaning is in and of itself disgusting. I mean, I actually couldn't believe what I was reading.
Loathsome? Give me a break.
Too much? LOL
WD said: "I'm sure the activists you claim you met were extremely well informed regarding what the conservative talking points are."
They had nothing to do with any "Talking points", actually.
Talking points is really coming across as a meaningless unintellectual term the way you are using it. I notice most do not use it.
------
Back to the issue, there's no evidence of any "Astroturf" for the Tea Party. After all, no one was paying the protesters to protest.
I did attend 3 rallies. I am not enough of a joiner to say I belong to the group. The most interesting things I saw were
1) one rally had the Green Party participating on the sidelines.
2) the other rally had a couple of "plant" leftists waving silly signs that no one would ever seriously believe in, in order to try to discredit the particular Tea Party protest.
dmarks: ...there's no evidence of any "Astroturf" for the Tea Party.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah... dmarks, you're hilarious!
In case dmarks wasn't joking, here is some proof of the astroturf nature of the Tea Party movement...
The Guardian: "The Tea Party movement: deluded and inspired by billionaires". (excerpt) The Tea Party movement is remarkable in two respects. It is one of the biggest exercises in false consciousness the world has seen – and the biggest Astroturf operation in history. The Tea Party... is mostly composed of passionate, well-meaning people who think they are fighting elite power, unaware that they have been organised by the very interests they believe they are confronting. [end excerpt]
The 99 percent movement... they're real grassroots. They're fighting for average Americans against the big money interests. Everyone who opposes plutocracy should be supporting the 99 percent movement.
99% is a meaningless construct, wd. I mean, think about it here. What, pray tell, does a $200,000 a year accountant have in common with $9 an hour day common laborer? There's just way too much diversity.......And there's too much diversity within the tea party, too. I mean, yeah, there probably IS that element which you're describing here. But there are a lot of other elements, too.
So, you're saying you'd be on board if they had called it the 95 percent movement? Or is it that you like plutocracy?
WD quoted: "is mostly composed of passionate, well-meaning people who think they are fighting elite power, unaware that they have been organised by the very interests they believe they are confronting. [end excerpt]"
A perfect example of a newspaper that is thousands of miles its subject, and its ignorance resulting from it shows. Ar the rallies I saw, confronting the elites was the main, strongest thread. Starting with the very strong opposition to TARP and the other bailouts of corporations.
The 99 percent movement... they're real grassroots. They're fighting for average Americans against the big money interests."
Actually in most of their agenda, they are fighting for the government to have more power at the expense of the average person.
"Everyone who opposes plutocracy should be supporting the 99 percent movement."
No way, not with their strong support of empowering the elites.
Will said: "99% is a meaningless construct, wd"
A more meaningful percent would be something from 25% to 35%. That's the real percentage they represent.
wd, I believe in a progressive income tax and you know it. I also believe in judging people as individuals and not according to some partisanly concocted paradigm that does little more than make it harder to achieve consensus (and, yes, I blame the tea-party movement and talk-radio here as much as I do the progressives).
dmarks: No way, not with their strong support of empowering the elites.
The 99 percent movement is VERY much opposed to empowering the elites. They believe that, instead of the wealthy having the power, the power should reside with the people... and they should exercise that power through their elected representatives.
Will: I believe in a progressive income tax and you know it.
Yes, you've said you favor a slightly more progressive income tax. You also worry a LOT about things getting out of hand and rich people ending up paying too much. And you've said many many times how you'd vociferously oppose that.
It seems to me you worry much more about the latter then the former.
I'm for the same tax rates as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and, yes, I oppose the draconian rates that you and others have proposed. I plead guilty.
Well,it seems Obama's touted "Buffet Rule" turns out to be a laugh.If inacted it will produce 4 billion per year for the next eleven years.That will sure put a dent in our 20 trillion dollar debt.Get idea Barry.
oops....great idea Barry!
I'll bet anyone 100 bucks and lay 9-2 you never hear anything about that on MSLSD.
The President is doing it for political mileage (not that 4 billion per season is necessarily scratch, mind you), Russ, and it absolutely makes me think the lesser of him for it.
Will: ...it absolutely makes me think the lesser of him for it.
Most Americans agree that the wealthy don't pay their fair share... and a rule proposed by the president to even things out... and you have this reaction? It makes me think the lesser of Will Hart.
WD said: "the power should reside with the people... and they should exercise that power through their elected representatives."
In what you advocate, the power ends up residing with the representatives (who happen to be the ruling elites), not the people. Why not advocate as much as possible the power residing with the people AND being exercised by people making their own decisions, instead of having the ruling elites force their preferences on everyone?
-----------
As for WD's "Most Americans agree that the wealthy don't pay their fair share."
It all depends on the polls you look at.
Come on now, having the ruling elites plunder more is not the best solution. We already HAVE a progressive tax system. The rich already DO pay the lion's share of taxes.
Rusty said: "Well,it seems Obama's touted "Buffet Rule" turns out to be a laugh.If inacted it will produce 4 billion per year for the next eleven years"
Does this calculation of such a massive tax increase take into account the effect this will have on behavior (i.e. rich people shuffling their assets around to avoid the taxes, a situation that often results in job loss or bad effects from such taxes forcing the rich to invest outside of the US instead of inside)?
As you know, wd, I'm in favor of raising the top tax rates back to the Clinton era AND the capital gains rate to the very same level. My problem here is more with the messaging, the pitting of one group against another. The top 1% makes 16.9% of the AGI but pays 36.7% of all income taxes. For the President to say that these folks aren't "paying their fair share" is ludicrous.
Will: I was being sarcastic when I called this supposed $4 total billion increase in revenue a "massive tax increase". I wonder if it is worth the cost, though, in money moved out of the country, small businesses pushed over, and jobs lost.
And yes, in regards to "For the President to say that these folks aren't "paying their fair share" is ludicrous"... and the question of whether or not he "gets it". The evidence from this is that he is more about pushing his personal preference of "fair" on everyone, while fixing the economy (jobs jobs jobs!) takes a back seat to such considerations.
That's true. Tax increases (and other forms of government intrusion) can often have unintended consequences that the perpetrators didn't account for (that luxury tax which gutted the yachting industry in Rhode Island being a perfect example).
dmarks: As for WD's "Most Americans agree that the wealthy don't pay their fair share". It all depends on the polls you look at.
No it doesn't. The author of the article you linked to is full of shit.
First he says, "The Hill tried a different route, they asked respondents to choose the 'Most Appropriate Top Tax Rate For Families earning $250,000 or More?' Only 31 percent of Americans chose 30 percent or more and 61 percent chose less than 25 percent".
But when Think Progress (who this doofus thinks he's rebutting) points out that people's effective tax rate is actually LOWER then 25 percent and there is still a LOT of room for them to pay more, he calls it a "misleading defense".
Wrong. Americans think the wealthy don't pay their fair share. Polls overwhelmingly show this to be the case... the only way the author of this article can rebutt that is with some misleading of his own.
Sorry dmarks, but this is a "fail".
wd, according to that CBO study, the top quintile pay an effective rate of 25.1% and the top 1% pay an effective rate of 29.5%. It sounds to me like this is much more of a "fail" for thinkregress than it is for dmarks.
And I wonder how people would respond to the question if they knew that the top 1% makes 16.9% of the AGI but pay 36.7% of all federal income taxes (I'm assuming that most people, perhaps not even President Obama, are cognizant of this).
Will: according to that CBO study, the top quintile pay an effective rate of 25.1% and the top 1% pay an effective rate of 29.5%.
CBS News: Wealthy Americans see drop in federal taxes (excerpt) The IRS tracks the tax returns with the 400 highest AGIs each year. The average income on those returns in 2007, the latest year for IRS data, was nearly $345 million. Their average federal income tax rate was 17 percent, down from 26 percent in 1992 (4/17/2011).
Will: And I wonder how people would respond to the question if they knew that the top 1% makes 16.9% of the AGI but pay 36.7% of all federal income taxes.
I hope they'd realize that they were being lied to. Not about the figures (assuming they're correct), but that comparring them means something. One is bigger then the other... so what? They are percentages of DIFFERENT NUMBERS!
wd, according to the Tax Foundation and IRS, the top 1%'s percentage of the AGI was 20% in 2008 and it dropped to 16.9% in 2009. The top 1%'s share is decreasing, not increasing.......And of course they're different numbers. But they should be at least in the ballpark in terms of the percentage. If I'm making 16.9% of the income but I'm paying 36.7% of the total income federal income taxes, and somebody says that I'm still not paying "m.y fair share", I don't know, I think that that would piss me off a little.
Post a Comment