Why are Tea Party Members Older Than Occupy Members?(updated)

Russ Steele

This maybe the reason the the Occupy groups are filled with young people with out jobs.

There are some other major difference between the Tea Party and Occupy:



About Russ Steele
Freelance writer and climate change blogger. Russ spent twenty years in the Air Force as a navigator specializing in electronics warfare and digital systems. After his service he was employed for sixteen years as concept developer for TRW, an aerospace and automotive company, and then was CEO of a non-profit Internet provider for 18 months. Russ's articles have appeared in Comstock's Business, Capitol Journal, Trailer Life, Monitoring Times, and Idaho Magazine.

39 Responses to Why are Tea Party Members Older Than Occupy Members?(updated)

  1. stevefrisch says:


  2. sean2829 says:

    Actually Obama promised change to young people. This is the change he delivered. Young people may still think he’s cool but I’m not sure how many still think he’s leading them down the path of economic salvation.

    • Michael Anderson says:

      I’ll be interested to learn how Romney’s going to do things differently. So far all I’m hearing is “I am not Obama.” That’s not gonna cut it.

  3. stevefrisch says:

    Considering that the alternative was complete economic collapse thanks to the policies led by Republicans and concurred with by weak democrats, I would say President Obama has done pretty well. Of course the republicans are counting on the point that it is hard to prove a negative, they will continue to compare the Presidents performance to the 90’s and pretend he has failed. Really we should be comparing the Presidents performance to the 30’s and realizing he is successful.

    • Dena says:

      The alternative was not a complete economic collapse. In history, the only ones who had a complete economic collapse was the Weimar Republic along with a few south American banana republics and that was because they were doing exactly what Obama is except even more. Our “Recovery” consist of about a 20% plus real unemployment figure. The government has cooked the numbers so much that most people don’t understand things are still about as bad as the great depression and not getting any better.
      If Obama wanted a recovery, he only needed to lower the top tax bracket to 20% and reduce government spend. If that was all he did, I would be be voting for him. However, is is doing exactly the opposite and the economy shows the results.

      As for the question, age brings wisdom allowing better times to be compared with the present. Also the chart shows that older people are more employable because of experience and willing to take pay cuts or work a less desirable job. The young want it all now and don’t understand that older people were once in their shoes.
      I was very much in that position when I was young. I was lucky in that I could stay in school during the worst of a recession and then when I got out of school, I worked a job that wouldn’t have payed living expenses. That gave me the experience to move on to something better. Because these kids grew up in an economic boom where any warm body would be hired, they expect those conditions to continue to exist in a recession.

      • RL Crabb says:

        I agree with Dena that Obama blew a golden opportunity to squelch partisanship in DC. If he and congress had made tax reform a priority in the first year, there would have much less animosity, businesses and investors would have had some stability and reason to hire, and even the stimulus would have gone down easier.
        If the Republicans win in November, I doubt they will do any better at bridging the great divide.

    • SteveF, Obama is even running on “not Obama”. What a hoot!

  4. sean2829 says:

    I have a funny feeling that Obama is not going to run on a platform of ‘hey, it could have been worse’. In the 2008 election he was a blank blank page that people could fill in with their own hopes. His signature accomplishment is a massive misnomer, the affordable care act. If you are a working class person, almost a third of the money you earn at your place of employment goes to the healthcare industry ($20k/yr per household for healthcare). He did not cause healthcare costs to skyrocket but he’s done nothing to change the trajectory. Then there is the environmental agenda. Do you chose a guy who makes it difficult to get a job or get a raise? This president ran on hope the first time. This cycle it looks like his campaign wants to use fear. I think most people will see through this.

  5. gjrebane says:

    “Considering that the alternative was complete economic collapse …” is the fundamental mantra of Obama’s dismal record – dismal recovery vs collapse, a proposition with only one side of which is supported by evidence.

  6. gjrebane says:

    “If the Republicans win in November, I doubt they will do any better at bridging the great divide.” If you plan to build a bridge, it should at least be one that allows you to get to a place you want to go. There don’t appear any reasons on either side why such bridges should be planned, let alone built.

  7. benjaminemery says:

    Why are Tea Party Members Older Than Occupy Members?

    This is a tale of two political revolutions

    Tea Party folks came of age during the benefits of FDR/ New Deal policies, which created the largest and strongest middle class in world history. This is what Tea Party people mean when they say we want our country back without realizing it.

    Occupy folks came of age during the policies of Reagan/ trickle down/ free trade, which has led to the biggest inequality gap in a century in the US.

  8. Yikes! Ben Emery actually believes the crap he just wrote? Apparently.

    The unemployment rate for Americans prior to WW2 after eight years of FDR was no better than when he started. WW2 united the country and afterwards the middle class emerged in great strength (hardworking people, not handouts). Occupiers are a bunch of spoiled brats who want free stuff. Big difference in worldview. To try and remake history as BenE is trying is Orwellian.

  9. gjrebane says:

    Benjamin Emery 0536 – Unfortunately your history is as fractured as that of the Occupiers. FDR’s policies extended and deepened the Great Depression, and would have continued the post-WW2 economic disaster had not Truman sunsetted them after the 1946 recession. Today’s tea partiers came of age after FDR’s policies were laid to rest, and during the golden age of enterprise in modern America that followed in the remaining 40s, the 50s, and the first half of the 60s before Lyndon’s Great Society kicked in and started us down the road of dumbth.

    The Occupiers of today are the full beneficiaries of 40 years of a destroyed public education system. For proof, stick a mic in any of their faces and ask a simple civics question. But don’t you dare ask a public policy question that involves the recall and/or manipulation of any numbers, they are all proudly innumerate.

  10. benjaminemery says:

    I thought you guys would like a serving of reality. Just look at the economies that followed FDR vs Reagan for 30 years and I will choose those following FDR 100% of the time. Look at the progressive policies FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson continued and enacted vs its conservative counterparts Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and now Obama.

    We still have Supply Side tax policies in place, we still have administrations expanding free trade, we have administration after administration expanding the American military empire (Defense budget tripled since 1998), and we are still seeing our national debt explode while services for the people decline. Reagan revolution started it, remember Reagan tripled our national debt, made deals with terrorists, gave amnesty to illegal immigrants to break unions, gutted dept of education, and so on.

    It is time for you to enter into reality or check out so the adults can clean up your mess.

    • Dena says:

      First get your history right, FDR was about as far left as they come and it took a war to get us out of his mess.
      Truman was also left but he was stuck with a Republican congress that forced his hand often.
      Eisenhower was middle of the road.
      Kennedy understood what high taxes would do and cut taxes. However Kennedy was tempted by big government as well.
      Reagan was stuck with a congress that gave him tax cuts but wouldn’t cut spending which was the other half. Even with that restriction, he was almost able to balance the budget.
      Both Bush’s are progressive lite.
      Clinton was far left for the first two years and then he got stuck with a republican congress that forced him to move to the center so he could be reelected. If he hadn’t made that move, he would have been a one termer.
      Obama is worst that FDR as the constitution is no barrier to his actions. He is near a dictator and because the senate is democrat his backside is covered. He can be impeached but the senate would never convict.

      What is taking place today would have Reagan rolling over in his grave because he never would have allowed the amount of spending taking place today or the high tax rate we are looking at. The Laffer curve which Reagan was well aware of indicates todays actions will result in failure.

      Political party is not an indication of political actions. There are very few democrats that are conservative and there are republican that are progressive lite. You have to look deeper that the political party label to measure the person.

  11. gjrebane says:

    How can a people so divided in their knowledge of their past, their understanding of the present, and their vision for a future work productively together within the same boundaries? History in the making.

  12. Todd Juvinall says:

    Actually BenE did check out but he just hasn’t accepted it yet. His history is from a differnet planet, certainly not earths. If his view of the historic record wins, Big Brother wins.

  13. benjaminemery says:

    Reagan administrations were the biggest debtor years in American history. His administration nearly tripled the US debt that took from George Washington admin. to Jimmy Carter admin. combined to create. When adjusted for inflation Reagan administrations racked up nearly $9 trillion. I really encourage all of you to read Tear Down This Myth. The Reagan Revolution has made our current situation possible. It started in the 1970’s but the Reagan administrations fully embraced this idea of accumulated wealth(supply side garbage), dropping of import tariffs, deregulation of vital industries, breaking the ability to organize and collectively bargain (1980 =25% corporate unionized workforce 2012 =6% corporate unionized workforce), and for all industries to become monopolistic in nature.

    It has failed yet most of you still promote the idea as valid, why?

  14. benjaminemery says:

    Here are some links to Tear Down Your Revision of the Reagan Years

    Tear Down This Myth

    Alan Simpson on Reagan Tax Increases

  15. BenE, you put a video on a fellow who hates Reagan here as a what? Why would we care what Bunch, a OWS lover has to say?

    Also, the video of Simpson is ridiculous. He was responding to people who said Reagan never raised taxes and we all know he did. So what is the myth? I knew he taxed savings accounts and other stuff in some trade with Tip O’Neill to cut regulations and government spending. Reagan lived up to his side of the agreement and O’Neill didn’t. I’d say you should be excoriating Tip.

    Here is a snippet about Bunch from the Simon and Schister website.

    “Will Bunch, currently a senior writer for the Philadelphia Daily News and the author of a popular political blog called “Attytood,” which has a progressive bent and a national readership, has been covering presidential races since Reagan’s re-election in 1984. He has won numerous journalism awards, sharing the 1992 Pulitzer Prize for spot news reporting with the New York Newsday staff. He is author of one previous book, and his writings have appeared in the New York Times Magazine, American Prospect, Mother Jones and elsewhere.”

    • benjaminemery says:

      Reagan and the policies of his administration promoted are directly linked to today’s income inequality, bubble economies, poor educational system, insane defense budgets, backlash from 80’s middle east/ Asian policies, and much much more. Reagan revolution has destroyed the United States of America ability to compete in the world. US based transnational companies are making record profits but the people of the US are hurting. This is the case due to our government being owned through the funding of the republican and democratic parties by big money special interests.

      Here is a piece published in 2010 that makes this a simple

      The Experiment Has Failed

      The experiment has failed and it’s time to go back to what built the strongest and largest middle class in world history. From the 1940’s to the 1970’s our government set the rules of the economy in favor of America and its citizens. The rules were set up so companies would reinvest capital back into the American economy, technology, and its workers. America was the manufacturing superpower and had a blue-collar middle class that could survive on a single-income home. With this single income we could afford to own a home, have health care, send our kids to college or trade school, take vacations, and have a pension for retirement with relatively low debt. Today two-income homes can’t afford many of these things and are waste deep in debt, and an increasing number of people are over their head in debt. It is all about the incentives, which changed in 1981 with the economic strategy of what was called Supply Side or Trickle Down economics.

      This new economic strategy promised to bring more investment into the American economy and jobs. The first step was to cut taxes for the investment class (top 1%), allowing them to keep more of their money so they could invest back into the economy creating more jobs: the trickle-down effect. The next step was to deregulate or stop enforcing rules, to allow more efficient production and help increase the supply of goods. In this sense, supply-side theory has worked. Productivity in America has steadily increased over these 30 years. The theory went on to suggest that excess goods would then drop the prices, creating more demand by having more affordable goods.

      What has happened is the capital that was originally reinvested back into the American economy, technology, and its workers have gone to a few administrators and CEOs. In 1980 a CEO made on average 40 times as much as the company’s lowest paid worker. Today that number is well over 500 to 1, and in some industries this ratio can be 5,000 to 1. The executives then invest the money into Wall Street for quick short-term personal profits instead of where the capital was created, in their company and workers. This results in bubble economies of boom and bust cycles. It also created a new very wealthy and powerful class in America that has corrupted our government. In 1980 there were about 500 lobbyists in Washington, D.C., and today there are as many as 40,000 lobbyists donating to campaigns and legally influencing/ bribing elected officials.

      Ross Perot was correct in 1992 about the “Giant Sucking Sound” of American jobs leaving the country because of Free Trade Agreements.

      In the 1990’s, with the new rules of economics, CEO’s and their lobbyists influenced our government to openly embrace Free Trade in the guise of America companies selling their goods to the world market. What wasn’t mentioned to the American people in these trade agreements was that the U.S. handed over its economic sovereignty to mediators such as the World Trade Organization. We no longer can set our own tariffs or protect U.S. jobs because of these agreements, and that is why our jobs are leaving the country. When this happens American workers are forced to compete with Communist China and their oppressed work force and other oppressed third-world countries that don’t have the external costs of adequate work conditions, living wages, health care, pensions, and most of all, environmental standards.

      The result of our shift from demand-side to supply-side economics created a wage/ productivity gap. In the United States’ strong middle-class era, wages created demand and productivity increased as the demand went up. As wages went up so did demand, and this created more jobs. Wages in the U.S. for 30 years have remained stagnant while productivity has increased, creating a huge gap of too many goods and not enough money to buy them. It was filled with easy credit and low interest rates. The Federal Reserve has kept interest rates amazingly low for this entire period, creating an economy based on credit, not wages. In the last few years the credit bill has come due with interest, and the American economy has become a house of cards with no way of paying it back.

      The experiment of supply-side economics and free trade has failed miserably and created monopoly capitalism. We need to go back to sane economic and trade policies that protect America and its jobs.

    • benjaminemery says:

      Reagan drastically reduced taxes on the wealthiest Americans and raised them on the rest of us, that was the point. Why wouldn’t I post Will Bunch? He wrote a book breaking the myths of the Reagan administrations. Some myths that those of us on the left believe and many myths that have been propagandized to the republican voter. Reagan made deals with terrorists and dealt arms to our sworn enemy. Reagan gave blanket amnesty to 3 million undocumented/ illegal workers, he nearly tripled the national debt, he signed nuclear disarmament treaties, and he met with the leader of the USSR during the cold war (today’s republican leadership would disown Reagan and would talk of bombing instead).

      • BenE, you are truly from Mars and I am from Venus. Never the twain shall meet. You people on the left are shameless. You cite a book trashing Reagan and becasue it fits your twisted histpric template it becomes the truth. That is why your ilk and mine are at odds. We look at the same thing and have 180 divergent views of what we just saw. It is really good you are not a police homicide investigator. You’d never catch the perps (evidential input analysis).

        Reagan was not perfect but hey, Carter left him with a 22% prime rate and extremely high home mortgage rate. America was toast and since I was not under the influence of any controlled substance while Reagan was the President, I recall perfectly well what took place then.

  16. gjrebane says:

    BenE, you eloquently underline the proposition that there finally is absolutely no middle ground between American progressives and conservatives. The gulf has been exposed in a thousand essays each day on such blogs as this and in the national media. Everything we look at together, we see in a starkly different light. There will be little productivity as long as we must chafe in each other’s clutches. I am more than willing to let you and yours go your way in peace. How do we do that?

    • benjaminemery says:

      Here is the problem; those who take money for favors cannot compromise if they want the same support in the future. Lets get rid of the special interest money in politics and we can have representatives that are true to their principals but at the same time can compromise on behalf of their constituents. This is how our republic (democratic) is supposed to work.

      On the progressive and conservative issue- I think we could agree on the major problem but disagree with the solutions we are allowed to discuss. I strongly encourage you to watch this interview. There is definitely some bias in it but the main issue is covered well. The absolute corruption of our system of governance has infected every aspect of our lives. We have a top down government, economy, and society in which we are regulated from the bottom up. Our founders vision has been inverted. Until this one issue is addressed and resolved we will continue to spin our wheels pointing fingers. There is no way of going different ways until we bring the powers of government back to the people and closest to the people at the local levels. If I don’t like a particular local/ regional culture I can move to one that suits the kind of community I wish to live.


  17. gjrebane says:

    BenE 1236 – we almost agree. Conservatives are very interested in taking money away from the beast by reducing its scope in our lives and in our economy. As long as govt is the major spender in our economy and commands how those monies are spent, there will always be special interests getting to the politicians to lobby for this or that. Attempting to limit money to the politician is both unconstitutional and a fool’s errand as a century of attempts testify.

    We have to starve the beast itself, then when govt no longer picks winners and losers, and no longer spends by fiat here instead of there, there will be no impetus to curry politicians’/bureaucrats’ favors and line their pockets, because they then cannot return such favors. But that is something that the likes of you will never agree to; instead you folks always want to lay on another layer of laws and regulations that limit our freedoms according to your broken model of human behavior. Do you see any way around that?

    • benjaminemery says:

      This is the thing, I think we actually agree but disagree on the chicken or the egg. Government has grown exponentially since the shift in the 1980’s due to the concentration of wealth. When incentives (tax/ trade policies) are to reinvest (wages, R&D, benefits, expansion) in America our economy becomes stable. When the incentives are to keep the created wealth at the top we get speculation and absolute corruption of the body that creates the laws we live by. This in no way eliminates a person’s ability to become wealthy but it does create a system that assures a healthy balance for the general welfare of our nation.

      As wealthy business men/women and corporate entities accumulate huge sums of capital the safest investment is in government. Invest a couple million in lobbying for a law/ regulation that will return tens of millions in return. If we want a true democratic republic we need to get the special interest money out of the system. Remove the money and the return favors disappear (Medicare Part D, obsolete fighter jets, corporate subsides). The size/ scope of our federal government will decrease at a pace that could never happen through social austerity.

      This is why we need public funding of campaigns and instant run off voting. Competition based on ideas not who a candidate knows or has made back room deals with to gain the nomination. Obama is a perfect example, my guess what Obama wants to do and what he does are to completely different things. Just look at his turning of the cheek towards the financial industry, Obama #1 contributors surprisingly enough came from the financial sector. He puts the thieves that created the financial crisis in charge once again. If he ran on the positions he took the first 3 years my vote would have went to a different candidate in 2008. In 2012 it will most definitely NOT being going to Obama mainly due to his assault on our civil liberties and lack of guts against the big banks, he is worse than the Bush administrations.

      Public Financing of Campaigns and Instant Run Off Voting

      Outside a complete collapse I truly believe this is the only way to bring back the power to local governance. It would give us a window of about a decade before so many holes are drilled into it making it just an obstacle to maneuver around.

      • George I thnk I am missing something in BenE’s view about the “concentration” of wealth. During the first half of the 2000’s almost every single American that owned a home took out a second (and purchased goodies) and those that couldn’t qualify to buy a home were granted one. Now the concentration of trillions of dollars was in the equities of the homes underwritten by mortgages and default credit swaps. What ever anyone thinks of those monetary instruments they allowed millions to become a part of the homeowner elite. (tongue in cheek). So when millions of citizens who otherwise could not be part f the middle class homeowner elite of America were given access to that elite group would that not be a growth of the middle class? Also, the banks and mortgage companies that went under were the underwriters of the default swaps (Washington Murual, Countrywide etc.) so the OWS hatred of the banks came to fruition with the banks demise. I guess I am just plain cornfused about the left’s claim about the concentration of wealth.

  18. gjrebane says:

    BenE 0746 – Apparently my previous explanation was not clear enough. You return to the notion that FIRST we must restrict individual freedoms (at great regulatory, enforcement, and punishment costs) to somehow reduce the ability to bribe politicians, then SECOND, the politicians will not be motivated to return special interest favors because no bribe was forthcoming. This ‘solution’ requires the typically bent view of human nature that afflicts progressives.

    It is the politicians, with their hands on the levers of power, who ALWAYS will initiate the solicitation of bribes. And moreover, will do everything in their power to facilitate the passage, handling, and ‘proper use’ of such monies. In other words, in the real world a powerful government acts as a pull for bribes. It was ever thus.

    The ONLY remedy is to reduce/remove as many levers of power as possible from government that can be influenced by bribes to benefit INDIVIDUAL politicians – i.e. reduce the scope of governments at all levels. The more such scope is reduced by removal of functions or their dispersion to lower levels of government, the harder it is for any politician to solicit, and the harder it is for a big special interest to distribute bribes into a dispersed landscape of governance. Concentrating and expanding government power is the great evil. And this is why we want you progressives to go your own way with your dysfunctional view of human nature.

    • benjaminemery says:

      This is the chicken or egg. Please go look back at the size and scope of the federal government pre and post Reagan Revolution of the 80’s. The all powerful levers you speak of are products/ favors of the bribery. There is a study about 5 years old that found a majority of federal regulations (new “regulatory” agencies) over the last 30-40 years were pushed/ advocated and paid for through lobbying and financing the Republican/Democratic Party’s by big business. Thus reducing their liability in our legal system and eliminating competition of medium and small business.

      What you are advocating is nothing even close to the US Constitution and the powers of government. Please go read the enumerated powers again of all three branches again. When fictional entities began receiving human rights is really when the complete distortions of the US Constitution began to shape our current form of government. Once again it was the accumulation of wealth by the railroad barons( I know government give aways and contracts) that had a 20 year campaign post Civil War to redefine what “person” meant in the constitution with a ruling by SCOTUS. From the mid 1880’s to 1910 just over 300 cases were brought using the 14th amendment. 280 of those cases were brought by corporations establishing corporate personhood.

      If wealthy enough with no morals/ scruples and the bottom line is the main goal of existence (pretty much large national/ transnational business) then government is the best return on investment.

      • gjrebane says:

        Huh?! EVERYTHING I have prescribed is permitted, and indeed invited, by our Constitution. That you folks are blind to these possibilities is one of the great motivations for the Great Divide.

      • benjaminemery says:

        My comment of reading enumerated powers was to inform you much of what you claim is not in the powers government are indeed powers given by the US Constitution. By making general and broad claims about government you leave me having to guess at what levers of “power” you would reduce or remove from government. My guess is Medicare, Social Security, regulations, welfare, taxation, ect…

        “It is the politicians, with their hands on the levers of power, who ALWAYS will initiate the solicitation of bribes. ”

        The chasm of the real world comes into play once again but so much so it might come full circle where we can agree. Government has been used as a tool by oligarchs/ plutocrats to legitimize and secure their wealth and power. When the people begin to question this legitimacy the proverbial hammer comes down upon the heads of the dissenters.

  19. gjrebane says:

    ToddJ 0933 – our middle class is defined by both total net worth of assets, and the earning power to maintain those owned assets. The government instituting perverse lending practices to enable people to obtain temporary and tentative ownership of assets under a burden of debt that could not be serviced did not increase the numbers of our middle class. And this was a ‘middle class mirage’ even before the market value of their so purchased assets plunged.

  20. George, doesn’t BenE believe in “spreading” the wealth? He wants fairness and I thought the derivatives and easy lending spread the wealth to the less fortunate. The transfer of trillions from the evil banks to the less fortunate was accomplished as far as I can see. The less fortunate though were unable to pay back the loans and the taxpayers picked it up. The 50% who do ot pay fed taxes were allowed to have their debts transferred to the banks and the circlwe was complete. The “spreading” was a success. BenE should be ecstatic.

  21. gjrebane says:

    ToddJ 335pm – point well made. However, if we sharpen our pencils and track the money from all the stimulus trillions, we’d be surprised how little of the spread wealth landed in the pockets of those who really couldn’t figure out what a variable rate loan was, and that buying a house whose price had gone up annually more than 20% for the last three years was probably not the brightest thing to do. However, Fannie & Freddie, the ‘too big to fail’ outfits, and the unions made out.

  22. gjrebane says:

    BenE 243pm – You presume too much. At this stage in the discourse it is not proper to start the delineation of detailed ‘levers’ that should be restricted or removed, nor is it proper to ascribe to me the desire to totally disable government – conservetarians are proponents of governments that are strong within their limited scope. As a liberal, I do understand and sympathize with your apparent ignorance of the decades of conservative public policy literature that has issued from institutions such as Heritage, Cato, Hoover, American Enterprise, Mercatus, … .

    However, there is nothing in that entire corpus that prescribes desiderata for a castrated government, instead there are a multitude of remedies that detail the specific reductions in the current and rampantly expanding scope. Many of these I constantly present and review on RR, in my Union columns, and KVMR commentaries. For a productive discourse, the arguments presented in comment threads such as these assume that the counter is somewhat familiar with the particulars of a generalized assertion, and will respond in hyperbole only when they have no reasonable response to the presented arguments.

  23. benjaminemery says:

    I am very familiar with the work Cato, Heritage, and Hoover institutes. That is why my guess of which levers is an educated guess. I do not remember the usage of hyperbole in this thread on my part. What I have noticed is the core of the discussion moving away from corruption to government power. Once again I would argue they have become one and the same. The two most government corrupt era’s in our nations history have been the two era’s of huge amounts of concentrated wealth.

    Here is the thing, from reading your columns at RR and listening on KVMR your desire is made clear, the handing over control of our lives to an economic system. Here is a gigantic flaw in this desire, those who have the most wealth (money and property) to influence the economic system will control it and the rest of us will lead the lives of serfs. This is feudalism and was the standard for centuries until the enlightenment and this crazy idea of a democratic republic called the American Experiment.

  24. gjrebane says:

    BenE 349pm – having me “remove” taxation or any of the established entitlements in toto seemed a bit over the top. And now “handing over control of our lives to an economic system” and “lead the lives of serfs” – this belies any familiarity with or a gross misunderstanding of the writings of the aforementioned institutes.

    In any case we will continue to live under “an economic system”, whether it will be a collectivist one or one based on the liberty and the decentralization (recall ‘republic’ not democracy) of governments. The collectivist economic systems have created the greatest miseries man has known and in their implementation killed untold millions. I feel we are beginning to lap this barn.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: