Nobody seems to want to hear this, but it's true

[TalkingDog]

[Beartracks]

1. Who's the artist on this? n/t

[pinboy3niner]

17. Must be a wingnut...this isn't progressive. It's an RW point-of-view nt

[pinboy3niner]

2. NO--that's a false equivalency

To say that government isn't operating as it should is one thing, but to say that "big government" in itself is bad is to promote the Norquist/teabaggers/GOP meme that government shouldn't be doing the things it's doing--like providing social programs.

Disparaging "government" is the RW agenda--and they're the ones who always call it "big government."

[Lasher]

3. Exactly right.

[TalkingDog]

7. Don't we complain, every day, on this board about the blending of corporations and government?

So how is that a false equivalency?

I'm looking at the image rather than the way each side describes the entity they are railing against.

[pinboy3niner]

13. We complain about government working poorly, and the influence of big money

Liberals/progressives don't complain about "big government."

[DCKit]

23. Face it. You just don't "get" the cartoon.

But I'll be nice and explain it to you:

The Teabaggers are complaining about "Big Government" and OWS is complaining about "Big Banks" and Wall St., by extension). Please note that, in the cartoon, Government and Business are joined a few stories up - they're the same damn thing and our government has been co-opted by Big Business interests.

The entrances for "Big Oil", "Big Chemical", "Big Agribusiness", "Big Mining", "Big Timber" and all the rest are on the other three sides of the block with some really nefarious characters sneaking in and out by way of the alley.

All that's missing are the revolving doors between the various businesses and the government agencies that are supposed to be overseeing their activities.

Anything but a RW POV.

[hfojvt]

4. not even close

If "Big Government" is the problem, then what is the answer?

The obvious answer is to make the government smaller. But what does that do? It just makes it that much easier for the big corporation to dominate the tiny government.

The size of government is not the problem. The responsiveness and effectiveness is more of a problem than its size.

But responsiveness goes back to the big banks. Government is being responsive to big banks instead of to the people that it derives its just powers from.

Making the banks smaller does not have the same drawbacks as making government smaller. Smaller banks are less able to buy and sell politicians. The only downside to small banks is that then how would small US banks compete on a world market against big German, English, Chinese, Brazilian, Indian and Russian banks?

In some other sense, our problem is less with the size of the banks than it is with the character and values of the bankers, and less in the political process with the campaign contributions than it is with the awareness of the voters.

[fasttense]

5. It's not all the same thing.

The Teabaggers are funded by big banks and corporations like the Koch brothers. The Teabaggers are fake and would NOT exist if not for the Koch Brothers.

The occupy Wall Street protesting big banks are funded by...well... no one... except... We The People. They came into existence, as their brethren did in 1773, to fight the monopolies and corporations that rule our government and oppress the citizens.

[JVS]

6. By what means can we fight big business without a strong government?

[TalkingDog]

8. They aren't protesting strong government, they are protesting BIG governement..

not the same thing.

[pinboy3niner]

9. To them, it is the same thing

They object to what they call "big government" because it regulates business and provides social programs and TAXES them. Small, weak, ineffective government is their ideal.

[MrSlayer]

10. The problem as I see it is, the teabaggers vote. The occupy people, not so much.

I have been talking to OWS people over the net and in person over the past month and I'm finding a dismaying trend. A lot of the Occupiers HATE Obama as much as they hate any other politician. I mean they fucking hate him with all the vitriol I hated Bush with. I've had many people tell me that voting is a waste of time and that every Democrat is as bad as every Republican. I've been trying to explain that the movement has a good solid base already in Congress with the Progressive caucus and many Senators but I get shot down repeatedly. I hear things like, all your "progressive" congressmen voted for the corporate giveaway heath care act, they keep voting to fund the wars and they vote for every watered down, corporate, tax cut piece of shit legislation that comes down the pike. They do not see the natural allies in Congress we already have, they don't seem to like anyone but Bernie Sanders and, shockingly, Ron Paul. They are not interested in adding to the few good guys at all. Many seem to think that by just yelling and Occupying that suddenly, magically, everything will change into some "resourced based" economy. This is dangerously naive thinking, if we cannot translate this movement into voting for progressives, then it is merely jerking off and taking vanity laps without actually doing anything. And if a good portion of these people don't vote, we end up with President Romney and then the dogs and hoses come out and the movement is put down and things just get worse.

Everyone saw what the teabaggers did last time. They got a couple of absolute idiots within a hair of being in the Senate, they DID get Rand Paul into the Senate and they got a bunch of lunatics into the House. There is no reason why we can't go knocking off blue dogs and Republicans with 99%ers if we take the same sort of approach. I will continue to try and get this through to the Occupiers but so far, it is not an easy sale. This movement probably wouldn't even exist if the Democrats had been doing their jobs and acting like Democrats. Now, because of their "third way" bullshit, people aren't interested in letting them on board or even listening to them. This should be a perfect movement for the Democrats to glom on to and use but they are not wanted. This is a real pickle.

[FrenchieCat]

12. The OWS I've been talking to don't hate Obama, and they vote.....

You see, either OWS is 99% of us or it ain't.

When I saw those teachers, Union folks, families with their children, and many Black folks that passed by my business doors today in Oakland, marching around Lake Merritt and presenting themselves as the OWS movement, they were very much people like me....not like those you describe.

Problem is that many are trying to co-opt what is supposed to be the People's movement, and a diverse one at that...... By you stating who and what 99% supposedly think, you have decided that they should mirror your own thoughts. I think that's a mistake on your part. Makes you no better than others who are trying to force feed who this movement represents and what they are all thinking. Part of the reason this movement will win is because it is all of us. It is young and old. It is Black and White. It is poor and middle class. It isn't like the movement of the 1960s, where it was only the youth. This makes a movement that cannot be divided, and therefore, cannot be defeated.

[MrSlayer]

16. I was just relating what I have personally seen and heard.

And I've been disheartened by it politically. I see where you are coming from but if there are no central points how do you know who to vote for? How exactly do you win? If you have a bunch of Ron Paul people in there with you, what good is it doing? They aren't voting for any progressives. They're against most of the things we are in favor of. What good is it if we even get some Republicans out there screaming with us if they go home and vote Republican? I see the point of the more people out there the better but unless it translates into electoral change it won't mean much. This wave needs to be a political wave. It's senseless to not help people realize they are actually democratic socialists. Perhaps without using that term. The only people that will do the things most of this movement seems to be in favor of are liberal Democrats and Bernie Sanders. The potential to turn things around from the inside is there.

[JoeyT]

19. I wonder why they might dislike Obama?

Nearly everyone he appoints is from the very bunch they're protesting against. Seems like that might make them dislike him, doesn't it? I can't imagine why people protesting against Wall Street wouldn't support a president that only draws from Wall Street. Silly people.

[MrSlayer]

20. I'm not saying they're wrong for it.

Just that we might be expecting help from people that aren't going to give it.

[pnwmom]

11. This is a Libertarian viewpoint. n/t

[xchrom]

14. get government divorced from big buiness. nt

[Speed8098]

15. No

What's true is the government isn't big enough. Roll that around for awhile and then let's talk.

[MadHound]

18. Big government a problem, no. But our corrupt government is a problem indeed,

Since it has been bought and paid for by Corporate America, it acts in their behalf instead of ours.

The fact of the matter is that we live under a two party/same corporate master system of government and until we take corporate money out of our government, we will never make any headway.

[RegieRocker]

21. It's both.

[Fire Walk With Me]

22. To the tea party's owners, "small government' means no regulation on corporations and money-making

scams. Very, very different.