Right now, the liberals are resorting to their centuries-old favorite way of getting what they want: mob rule and intimidation (see Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America by Ann Coulter), in the form of the Occupy Wall Street protests. Naturally, their allies in the Leftmedia have ignored most of their worst excesses. By contrast, the Tea Parties were peaceful, using the time-honored Conservative way: persuasion culminating in the ballot box.
The many differences are due to their underlying philosophies. The Tea Partiers want the government to take less of what they have earned—and earned by hard work and pleasing their fellow man. The Occupiers want the government to give them (more!) things—and because the government has no money of its own, these things must be confiscated by force from the productive class. Since they love force by government, it’s only natural that they should resort to the same if the government isn’t giving them enough.
Violence and racism: only from the Occupiers
The contrasts should be obvious. The Tea Parties have been protesting in one way or another for almost a thousand days, and no one has been arrested. At Occupy Wall Street alone, over 700 people were arrested, and many arrests have occurred in other cities as well. In line with Tea Party philosophy of not demanding goods and services by force from other people, they cleaned up after themselves. Conversely, the Occupiers have cost the cities millions of dollars in cleanup fees alone—that is, unless protesters refused to cooperate so that “sanitary conditions have reached unacceptable levels”, committed crimes unrelated to what they are protesting about, and have resorted to disgusting acts.
Furthermore, the Occupiers include rabid anti-Semites such as LA substitute teacher Patricia McAllister who said, “Jews have been run out of 109 countries throughout history, and we need to run them out of this one.”
Oh, the leftist educracy fired her for these comments—but one can’t help wondering if she was fired only for making it obvious to all that a government teacher was a vile Jew-hater, rather than for her comments as such. How likely is it that this was the first time she’s spouted from such an evidently prepared script? As Thomas Sowell said on Patriot:
“But if these loud mouths’ inability to put together a coherent line of thought is any indication of their education, the taxpayers should demand their money back for having that money wasted on them for years in the public schools.”
By contrast, Tea Partiers were accused of shouting racist abuse, but lack of actual evidence never bothered their attackers—see Media Lying About Racist Attacks on Black Reps By Tea Party Protesters…video proof.
Naturally Dems have been sympathetic to the Occupiers, but were vicious about the Tea Party, as Ann Coulter reminds us:
“The Democratic National Committee called the tea partiers “angry mobs” and “rabid right-wing extremists.” ABC said they were a “mob.” CNN accused them of “rabble rousing.” Harry Reid called them “evil mongers.” Nancy Pelosi said they were “un-American.” CNN’s Anderson Cooper and every single host on MSNBC called the tea partiers a name that referred to an obscure gay sex act.
“But apparently liberals couldn’t even convince themselves that tea partiers were an extremist group unworthy of emulation.
“At least they’re embarrassed about what the OWS protesters really are: wingless, bloodsucking and parasitic. This is the flea party, not the tea party.”
Blame Wall Street? Yes, partly!
As has often been pointed out, this is something that Tea Parties and Occupiers can agree upon: Wall Street really has cheated the system by receiving massive bailouts from poorer taxpayers. But the Occupiers overlook the obvious fact that Wall Street gave far more money to the current President and his party! Democrats have always returned the favour, as Ann Coulter writes:
“In the 1990s, President Bill Clinton repeatedly bailed out his friends at Goldman Sachs and Citibank under the tutelage of his Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin — former chairman of Goldman Sachs. U.S. taxpayers were fleeced to prop up nations that were about to default on risky bonds purchased by Goldman and Citibank, such as Mexico (in 1995), Thailand, Indonesia and South Korea (in 1997), and Russia (in 1998).
“Of course, if the bonds turned a profit, only Goldman and Citibank would benefit.
“This is the Democrats’ idea of ‘capitalism’: Rich, Democratic-donating bankers get to engage in wild risk-taking; if the bets pay off, they keep all the winnings, but if the bets lose, they still keep the winnings, and the taxpayers get stuck with the bill.”
Why are they not protesting outside the White House—or indeed at the real “fat cat” leftist celebrities who are egging them on? Many of the Occupiers themselves are pretty “fat” themselves, like one young woman who “studies at Bard College in Manhattan – a private school which charges fees of up to $200,000 for a four-year degree.”
By contrast, Republican Congressman Paul Ryan speaks out against “corporate welfare that enriches the powerful, and empty promises that betray the powerless”—in total agreement with the Tea Parties.
But the Occupiers reject the one thing that could end “crony capitalism”: a genuinely free market, as the Tea Party supports. What we have now is a government in the business of granting or withholding favors to businesses. So of course Big Business has an incentive to lobby and bribe—oops sorry, contribute to politicians’ campaigns—to ensure that they are among the winners that government picks. No First-Amendment–destroying “campaign reforms” will stop this. John Stossel points out in his column Influence-Peddling:
“There is one way to rid the political system of this sort of corruption: severely restrict government power as the founders intended. Only when we eliminate the state’s ability to meddle in business, will business stop meddling in government.”
99 percent v. 1 percent?
It becomes tiresome to listen to Occupiers’ class war demagoguery, egged on by the Community Organizer in Chief. The usual claim is that “millionaires and billionaires” are not paying their fair share.
As usual, demagogues don’t let facts spoil their divisive rhetoric. In reality, as pointed out by the article, Obama’s class warfare bluster fails to create jobs:
“Obama’s claim that lower income Americans pay more in taxes than the “wealthy” is a lie. The Associated Press published the following 2011 statistics from the Tax Policy Center (a Washington think tank):
- Households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes and other taxes;
- Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay an average of 15 percent of their income in federal taxes; and
- Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7 percent.
“The latest IRS figures on federal income taxes show the same pattern. In 2009, taxpayers who made $1 million or more paid on average 24.4 percent of their income in federal income taxes. Those making $100,000 to $125,000 paid on average 9.9 percent, and those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid an average of 6.3 percent.”
And Obama’s remedy, as the same article points out:
“Obama’s “wealthy” are average Americans who make $200,000 as individuals or $250,000 as couples. They are firefighters and teachers, and small business owners who create most American jobs. They are now deemed “millionaires” and “billionaires” by Obama — the “new math” of Obamanomics.”
And of course, if job creators have more money confiscated by the greedy government, then they have less money with which to hire unemployed Occupiers!
Tea Party policies, aka free-market conservatism, would make the poor better off too. It’s really quite simple: if government were not taxing so much to repay their Wall Street donors with handouts, there would be more money available for hiring people. Most Tea Partiers are not “millionaires and billionaires” themselves; they just want to be able to support themselves and their families without forcing other people to do so.
But many Occupiers are not really about improving the poor, but about living at the expense of others. They have much more in common with the Wall Street Democrats than they care to admit!