Sanders planning "Major Speech" on democratic socialism

[Mac1958]

 

[Disir]

But that's another problem: "Working together" is the same as "cooperation", and currently that equates to "capitulation" in the minds of many.

Sanders is all about cooperation.

Your problem is a bit deeper. We have to learn how to cooperate. If we stand on the lines and just yell whatever it is that we are told to and send in some goons to solve the problem and those goons are taking their orders from Wall Street then we are screwed.

Frankly, we may be standing on the brink of making significant changes to the education system as a whole. Loss only comes without participation. Neither side loses if we go this route.

By the same token, we can all focus on education and identify solutions but if we are steadily ignoring H1B visas, outsourcing and immigration then it doesn't do a dang bit of good.

 

[Disir]

It was never about "evil corporations". It was about the amount of power they have over congress and the legislation that they purchase.

 

[NightFox]

I can't put a specific point on "effective regulation" and "too much" regulation. That's a decision a society has to make - How much economic dynamism is it willing to sacrifice in order to maintain proper balance? And yes, "proper" is the key word there.

How does "society" go about making that decision? Or how would you propose they do it?

We're clearly seeing a move toward populism right now, which was turbocharged by the Meltdown, which was in large part an abject failure of regulation. I'm no doubt to the Left of you on this issue, but there has to be a point of equilibrium that most can agree on if they're willing to work together.

Those are some big assumptions on your part there don't you think? Especially the part about "that most can agree on", case in point, it's a pretty safe bet that you and I would never agree on an "equilibrium" point in the vast majority of cases, even though by all appearances you are an agreeable person, you're also not going to get a lot of agreement between entrepreneurs and pro-regulation types on much even though entrepreneurs are the drivers of any healthy economy.

But that's another problem: "Working together" is the same as "cooperation", and currently that equates to "capitulation" in the minds of many.
.

IMHO it's mostly capitulation because we're talking about government involvement and the essence of government is coercion, too many in this country have learned they can vote (or buy) themselves economic favoritism instead having to earn their own way in a competitive (free) marketplace, so in effect they can short circuit market competition at either the voting booth or in smoke filled back rooms with a some bribe money.

 

[Indeependent]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need..."

F---ing clueless commie/progressives

Of course you realize that Communism is one of the three phases of Marx's Theory.
Marx was explaining how extremes result in the next phase.

Of course I had a momentary lapse where I thought CrusaderFrank knew anything.

 

[Mac1958]

I can't put a specific point on "effective regulation" and "too much" regulation. That's a decision a society has to make - How much economic dynamism is it willing to sacrifice in order to maintain proper balance? And yes, "proper" is the key word there.

How does "society" go about making that decision? Or how would you propose they do it?

We're clearly seeing a move toward populism right now, which was turbocharged by the Meltdown, which was in large part an abject failure of regulation. I'm no doubt to the Left of you on this issue, but there has to be a point of equilibrium that most can agree on if they're willing to work together.

Those are some big assumptions on your part there don't you think? Especially the part about "that most can agree on", case in point, it's a pretty safe bet that you and I would never agree on an "equilibrium" point in the vast majority of cases, even though by all appearances you are an agreeable person, you're also not going to get a lot of agreement between entrepreneurs and pro-regulation types on much even though entrepreneurs are the drivers of any healthy economy.

But that's another problem: "Working together" is the same as "cooperation", and currently that equates to "capitulation" in the minds of many.
.

IMHO it's mostly capitulation because we're talking about government involvement and the essence of government is coercion, too many in this country have learned they can vote (or buy) themselves economic favoritism instead having to earn their own way in a competitive (free) marketplace, so in effect they can short circuit market competition at either the voting booth or in smoke filled back rooms with a some bribe money.

Society makes those decisions at the ballot box. Or, at least, a free society does. That's all we have, that's all it can be, so it's up to the "sides" to present their case effectively.

As an entrepreneur myself and with +/- 90 business owner clients, I think the issue of how business owners view regulation is a little distorted. In no particular order, business owners don't like the various redundancies, complexities, inflated costs and uncertainties of regulation - not the fact that regulation is required to protect consumers, markets and themselves. Right now the regulatory environment is an absolute fucking mess, but that doesn't mean that business doesn't understand and appreciate its need.

Cooperation is an absolute necessity of an organized, civilized, sophisticated society. If some in the GOP think it's capitulation, that can only be the case because they don't have the votes to make things go their way. And if they don't have the votes, that means they aren't winning elections. The problem, then, is on the electoral side. If they lose votes in Congress, too bad, they didn't have the power. It's up to them to get it, and they can only do that by convincing more people than they currently are.
.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Match the system with the outcome.

System
Free market capitalism
Socialism

Outcome
Gave its people the highest standard of living and the vast majority of the greatest inventions
Responsible for tens of millions starving to death

Go!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Match the system with the outcome.

System
Free market capitalism
Socialism

Outcome
Gave its people the highest standard of living and the vast majority of the greatest inventions
Responsible for tens of millions starving to death

Go!

And capitalism has done almost as much for the entire world!

"....poverty, in which people live on less than $1 a day, has decreased by 80 percent since [Brook's] childhood.

Andit wasn't the UN, World Bank, or foreign aid that was responsible for that decline, he argues. He believes there are five explanations, which he laid out for an audience at the Aspen Ideas Festival, organized by the Aspen Institute and The Atlantic:


Globalization,

free trade,

property rights,

the rule of law,

and innovative entrepreneurship, ....."
Is America to Thank for the Global Decline in Poverty?

 

[NightFox]

Society makes those decisions at the ballot box. Or, at least, a free society does.

We do? I don't remember ever seeing proposed regulation on a federal ballot, how can a ballot box better determine economic efficiency than private enterprise interacting with consumers in a free marketplace? Wouldn't a free market where people vote with their dollars for competitors which provide a superior value proposition and against competitors that don't make more sense? Of course regulations are still required with respect to fraud (a form of coercion) and externalizing costs (another form of coercion) but it would be a small fraction of what we see today.

That's all we have, that's all it can be, so it's up to the "sides" to present their case effectively.

I don't agree with "that's all we have", we have another option which is to explicitly limit government involvement in the economy to that of an impartial referee which is a far cry from what we have now.

As an entrepreneur myself and with +/- 90 business owner clients, I think the issue of how business owners view regulation is a little distorted. In no particular order, business owners don't like the various redundancies, complexities, inflated costs and uncertainties of regulation

I don't know what industry you're engaged in but have you ever sat down and calculated the costs of regulation on your business, have you ever delineated all the unintended negative consequences that regulation imposes upon your business and to the market you service.

- not the fact that regulation is required to protect consumers, markets and themselves.

Question one: Do your customers require protection from you?
Question two: Where does it say that the role of government is to protective people from themselves? Are you assuming that people are too stupid to be allowed to make their own economic choices or do you feel that people should not be held accountable for making poor choices?
Question three: If we want voluntary exchange what sort of regulation is necessary to achieve that? In other words how can market freedom be ensured?

Right now the regulatory environment is an absolute fucking mess, but that doesn't mean that business doesn't understand and appreciate its need.

How do you think the regulatory environment got that way? How would you go about doing it differently ?

Cooperation is a necessity of an organized, sophisticated society.

Agreed and voluntary exchange coupled with production for profit is the ultimate expression of cooperation IMHO, coercion on the other hand is the ultimate expression of non-cooperation and most of our existing regulatory regime is coercive (You do it my way or else!)

If some in the GOP think it's capitulation, that can only be the case because they don't have the votes to make things go their way. And if they don't have the votes, that means they aren't winning elections.

Personally I don't care what the GOP thinks since I believe partisan politics is a major contributing factor in most of our economic problems and I don't think either major party is capable of being honest with the citizenry, they're always looking for the "what can we get out of this" angle.

 

[Mac1958]

Society makes those decisions at the ballot box. Or, at least, a free society does.

We do? I don't remember ever seeing proposed regulation on a federal ballot, how can a ballot box better determine economic efficiency than private enterprise interacting with consumers in a free marketplace? Wouldn't a free market where people vote with their dollars for competitors which provide a superior value proposition and against competitors that don't make more sense? Of course regulations are still required with respect to fraud (a form of coercion) and externalizing costs (another form of coercion) but it would be a small fraction of what we see today.

That's all we have, that's all it can be, so it's up to the "sides" to present their case effectively.

I don't agree with "that's all we have", we have another option which is to explicitly limit government involvement in the economy to that of an impartial referee which is a far cry from what we have now.

As an entrepreneur myself and with +/- 90 business owner clients, I think the issue of how business owners view regulation is a little distorted. In no particular order, business owners don't like the various redundancies, complexities, inflated costs and uncertainties of regulation

I don't know what industry you're engaged in but have you ever sat down and calculated the costs of regulation on your business, have you ever delineated all the unintended negative consequences that regulation imposes upon your business and to the market you service.

- not the fact that regulation is required to protect consumers, markets and themselves.

Question one: Do your customers require protection from you?
Question two: Where does it say that the role of government is to protective people from themselves? Are you assuming that people are too stupid to make be allowed to make their own economic choices or do you feel that people should not be held accountable for making poor choices?
Question three: If we want voluntary exchange what sort of regulation is necessary to achieve that? In other words how can market freedom be ensured?

Right now the regulatory environment is an absolute fucking mess, but that doesn't mean that business doesn't understand and appreciate its need.

How do you think the regulatory environment got that way? How would you go about doing it differently ?

Cooperation is a necessity of an organized, sophisticated society.

Agreed and voluntary exchange coupled with production for profit is the ultimate expression of cooperation IMHO, coercion on the other hand is the ultimate expression of non-cooperation and most of our existing regulatory regime is coercive (You do it my way or else!)

If some in the GOP think it's capitulation, that can only be the case because they don't have the votes to make things go their way. And if they don't have the votes, that means they aren't winning elections.

Personally I don't care what the GOP thinks since I believe partisan politics is a major contributing factor in most of our economic problems and I don't think either major party is capable of being honest with the citizenry, they're always looking for the "what can we get out of this" angle.

We do? I don't remember ever seeing proposed regulation on a federal ballot, how can a ballot box better determine economic efficiency than private enterprise interacting with consumers in a free marketplace? In a representative republic, we don't vote for individual regulations, laws and initiatives. We vote for those who propose and vote on regulations, laws and initiatives. We therefore vote for those whose policies most closely reflect ours. That's how it works.

I don't agree with "that's all we have", we have another option which is to explicitly limit government involvement in the economy to that of an impartial referee which is a far cry from what we have now. Great, vote for those people who would push that agenda. It's up to them to create that environment. If more people vote for someone else, you lose, and those who represent your agenda need to do a better job of attracting votes.

I don't know what industry you're engaged in but have you ever sat down and calculated the costs of regulation on your business, have you ever delineated all the unintended negative consequences that regulation imposes upon your business and to the market you service. I'm a financial advisor, and I do a great deal of calculating for both myself and my clients. There are negative consequences for virtually every action, and all we can do is identify (here it is again) the best point of equilibrium between the macro costs of regulation and the protections they bring. Life just isn't black & white.

Question one: Do your customers require protection from you? They definitely need protection from some people in the financial services industry, absolutely. I'd like to think that, with myself and my firm, they're in pretty good hands. And I've seen some pretty nasty shit that others in my profession have done, first hand.

Question two: Where does it say that the role of government is to protective people from themselves? Are you assuming that people are too stupid to make be allowed to make their own economic choices or do you feel that people should not be held accountable for making poor choices? People need protection from others who would do them harm. If a person makes a financial decision based on bad information, they are being hurt through no fault of their own. A screaming example comes from the Meltdown: People were buying CMO's that were rated AAA by the various ratings agencies. Those CMO's turned out to be total crap not worthy of junk bond ratings. The regulatory system was badly needed there and failed us. AIG was able to write hundreds of billions in credit default swaps without ANY reserve requirements, and that was one of the straws that broke the camel's back. Another example.

Question three: If we want voluntary exchange what sort of regulation is necessary to achieve that? In other words how can market freedom be ensured? We have to decide whether we want to provide regulatory protections for consumers and markets or whether we don't. We have long since decided that we do, and that will not change. We have decided that we don't want truly "free" markets, and I agree with that.

How do you think the regulatory environment got that way? How would you go about doing it differently? I don't really have an answer to that. The answer seems obvious: A system that identifies and reacts to redundancies and ambiguities and fixes them. The wheels of bureaucracy sure as hell do turn slowly, and we have to keep that in mind when creating those regulations.
.

 

[Papageorgio]

It was never about "evil corporations". It was about the amount of power they have over congress and the legislation that they purchase.

The one that controls the power to change that is Congress, not corporations. Congress needs to set limits and neither party will do that.

 

[Papageorgio]

But that's another problem: "Working together" is the same as "cooperation", and currently that equates to "capitulation" in the minds of many.

Sanders is all about cooperation.

Your problem is a bit deeper. We have to learn how to cooperate. If we stand on the lines and just yell whatever it is that we are told to and send in some goons to solve the problem and those goons are taking their orders from Wall Street then we are screwed.

Frankly, we may be standing on the brink of making significant changes to the education system as a whole. Loss only comes without participation. Neither side loses if we go this route.

By the same token, we can all focus on education and identify solutions but if we are steadily ignoring H1B visas, outsourcing and immigration then it doesn't do a dang bit of good.

Cooperation? Define it. Is it cooperation if it is all one way with no one with a different view being recognized?

Lately politics has been a "my way or the highway" attitude. Which isn't cooperation, it's bullying.

 

[NightFox]

In a representative republic, we don't vote for individual regulations, laws and initiatives. We vote for those who propose and vote on regulations, laws and initiatives. We therefore vote for those whose policies most closely reflect ours. That's how it works.

So regulations are not determined at the ballot box after all, they are in fact determined by politicians who pass off most of the responsibility of writing them to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.

Great, vote for those people who would push that agenda. It's up to them to create that environment. If more people vote for someone else, you lose, and those who represent your agenda need to do a better job of attracting votes.

Been there, done that, I hold no illusions that things will ever be done my way (at least in my lifetime) that does not however change my view that my way is morally superior to what we're doing now, we as a society are far to enamored of coercion and somebody else taking responsibility for actions to make such a drastic change.

I don't know what industry you're engaged in but have you ever sat down and calculated the costs of regulation on your business, have you ever delineated all the unintended negative consequences that regulation imposes upon your business and to the market you service. I'm a financial advisor, and I do a great deal of calculating for both myself and my clients. There are negative consequences for virtually every action, and all we can do is identify (here it is again) the best point of equilibrium between the macro costs of regulation and the protections they bring. Life just isn't black & white.

That's not what I asked, I asked if you had ever done the calculations to determine what the costs of the regulations that are in play for your industry are and have you sat down and delineated all the negative consequences that have resulted from them, since if you have not then you're really not in a position to make any value judgements with respect to whether or not those regulations are worthwhile.

Question one: Do your customers require protection from you? They definitely need protection from some people in the financial services industry, absolutely. I'd like to think that, with myself and my firm, they're in pretty good hands.

So you're one of the "good guys", congratulations which means that in essence you are part of the "protections" from the "bad guys" in your industry, right? beyond that isn't fraud already illegal? what additional protections beyond fraud prevention are required?

Question two: Where does it say that the role of government is to protective people from themselves? Are you assuming that people are too stupid to make be allowed to make their own economic choices or do you feel that people should not be held accountable for making poor choices People need protection from others who would do them harm. if a person makes a financial decision based on bad information, they are being hurt through no fault of their own. A screaming example comes from the Meltdown: People were buying CMO's that were rated AAA by the various ratings agencies. Those CMO's turned out to be total crap not worthy of junk bond ratings. The regulatory system was badly needed there and failed us. AIG was able to write hundreds of billions in credit default swaps without ANY reserve requirements, and that was one of the straws that broke the camel's back. Another example.

None of this demonstrates why you think people need protection from THEMSELVES, your examples all include a external party committing fraud against individuals, so you are basically side stepping the original questions.

Question three: If we want voluntary exchange what sort of regulation is necessary to achieve that? In other words how can market freedom be ensured? We have to decide whether we want to provide regulatory protections for consumers and markets or whether we don't. We have decided that we do, that will not change. We have decided that we don't want truly "free" markets, and I agree with that.

I think maybe I am not being clear, the question isn't one of NO regulation versus SOME regulation, the question is one of scope , as in what regulatory scope should be allowed, for example I believe that regulation need only be aimed at preventing fraud and cost externalization anything beyond that is what I would deem excessive regulation.

How do you think the regulatory environment got that way? How would you go about doing it differently? I don't really have an answer to that. The answer seems obvious: A system that identifies and reacts to redundancies and ambiguities and fixes them. The wheels of bureaucracy sure as hell do turn slowly, and we have to keep that in mind when creating those regulations.
.

Fair enough but I think if one really wants to be in a position to assess regulatory options one should really understand how we got in the mess we're in, I'm not claiming to be an expert on the subject but I have done quit a bit of research on the subject and found our current system wanting.

 

[Disir]

It was never about "evil corporations". It was about the amount of power they have over congress and the legislation that they purchase.

The one that controls the power to change that is Congress, not corporations. Congress needs to set limits and neither party will do that.

That's how it is supposed to work. That's not how it actually works. So, they cut out the middle man and went straight to Wall Street. The argument was later made that it was somehow all about all corporations are evil. Intentionally moving the issue to extremes.

 

[Papageorgio]

It was never about "evil corporations". It was about the amount of power they have over congress and the legislation that they purchase.

The one that controls the power to change that is Congress, not corporations. Congress needs to set limits and neither party will do that.

That's how it is supposed to work. That's not how it actually works. So, they cut out the middle man and went straight to Wall Street. The argument was later made that it was somehow all about all corporations are evil. Intentionally moving the issue to extremes.

That is why Occupy Wall Street was such a farce, it attacked the symptom not the cause. Congress is and always has been the issue.

 

[Mac1958]

In a representative republic, we don't vote for individual regulations, laws and initiatives. We vote for those who propose and vote on regulations, laws and initiatives. We therefore vote for those whose policies most closely reflect ours. That's how it works.

So regulations are not determined at the ballot box after all, they are in fact determined by politicians who pass off most of the responsibility of writing them to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.

Great, vote for those people who would push that agenda. It's up to them to create that environment. If more people vote for someone else, you lose, and those who represent your agenda need to do a better job of attracting votes.

Been there, done that, I hold no illusions that things will ever be done my way (at least in my lifetime) that does not however change my view that my way is morally superior to what we're doing now, we as a society are far to enamored of coercion and somebody else taking responsibility for actions to make such a drastic change.

I don't know what industry you're engaged in but have you ever sat down and calculated the costs of regulation on your business, have you ever delineated all the unintended negative consequences that regulation imposes upon your business and to the market you service. I'm a financial advisor, and I do a great deal of calculating for both myself and my clients. There are negative consequences for virtually every action, and all we can do is identify (here it is again) the best point of equilibrium between the macro costs of regulation and the protections they bring. Life just isn't black & white.

That's not what I asked, I asked if you had ever done the calculations to determine what the costs of the regulations that are in play for your industry are and have you sat down and delineated all the negative consequences that have resulted from them, since if you have not then you're really not in a position to make any value judgements with respect to whether or not those regulations are worthwhile.

Question one: Do your customers require protection from you? They definitely need protection from some people in the financial services industry, absolutely. I'd like to think that, with myself and my firm, they're in pretty good hands.

So you're one of the "good guys", congratulations which means that in essence you are part of the "protections" from the "bad guys" in your industry, right? beyond that isn't fraud already illegal? what additional protections beyond fraud prevention are required?

Question two: Where does it say that the role of government is to protective people from themselves? Are you assuming that people are too stupid to make be allowed to make their own economic choices or do you feel that people should not be held accountable for making poor choices People need protection from others who would do them harm. if a person makes a financial decision based on bad information, they are being hurt through no fault of their own. A screaming example comes from the Meltdown: People were buying CMO's that were rated AAA by the various ratings agencies. Those CMO's turned out to be total crap not worthy of junk bond ratings. The regulatory system was badly needed there and failed us. AIG was able to write hundreds of billions in credit default swaps without ANY reserve requirements, and that was one of the straws that broke the camel's back. Another example.

None of this demonstrates why you think people need protection from THEMSELVES, your examples all include a external party committing fraud against individuals, so you are basically side stepping the original questions.

Question three: If we want voluntary exchange what sort of regulation is necessary to achieve that? In other words how can market freedom be ensured? We have to decide whether we want to provide regulatory protections for consumers and markets or whether we don't. We have decided that we do, that will not change. We have decided that we don't want truly "free" markets, and I agree with that.

I think maybe I am not being clear, the question isn't one of NO regulation versus SOME regulation, the question is one of scope , as in what regulatory scope should be allowed, for example I believe that regulation need only be aimed at preventing fraud and cost externalization anything beyond that is what I would deem excessive regulation.

How do you think the regulatory environment got that way? How would you go about doing it differently? I don't really have an answer to that. The answer seems obvious: A system that identifies and reacts to redundancies and ambiguities and fixes them. The wheels of bureaucracy sure as hell do turn slowly, and we have to keep that in mind when creating those regulations.
.

Fair enough but I think if one really wants to be in a position to assess regulatory options one should really understand how we got in the mess we're in, I'm not claiming to be an expert on the subject but I have done quit a bit of research on the subject and found our current system wanting.

You're wearing me out here.

To try to put this on a macro level - I believe that proper, effective and efficient regulation of markets is absolutely necessary. The term "proper" obviously exists on a continuum, and I'm willing to make a trade-off: Consumer protection, market protection and a level playing field in exchange for some added costs and some retardation of the most dynamic nature(s) -- not to mention excesses -- of free market capitalism.

That said, I also strongly believe that we must always endeavor to minimize (we'll never eliminate) inefficiencies in regulatory systems and the level of negative effect they have on the economy. Putting such a system in place will require both ends of the spectrum to work together.
.

 

[NightFox]

You're wearing me out here.

Sorry Mac that wasn't my intention, more coffee?

To try to put this on a macro level - I believe that proper, effective and efficient regulation of markets is absolutely necessary. The term "proper" obviously exists on a continuum, and I'm willing to make a trade-off: Consumer protection, market protection and a level playing field in exchange for some added costs and some retardation of the most dynamic nature(s) -- not to mention excesses -- of free market capitalism.

Fair enough but I would ask that before you decide on making "trade-offs", ask yourself if said "trade-off" is potentially injurious to the economic well-being of others, who those others might be and is the "trade-off" morally justified (i.e. does it amount to a violation of the individual liberty or property of those it may harm).

That said, I also strongly believe that we must always endeavor to minimize (we'll never eliminate) inefficiencies in regulatory systems and the level of negative effect they have on the economy.

I can agree with that sentiment.

Putting such a system in place will require both ends of the spectrum to work together.
.

Work together yes as long as that working together doesn't involve the initiation of force against others (lives, liberty or property).

"I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think" -- Socrates

 

[The Rabbi]

Thank you , capt worthless.
National Socialism is precisely what Sanders is proposing.

 

[Disir]

But that's another problem: "Working together" is the same as "cooperation", and currently that equates to "capitulation" in the minds of many.

Sanders is all about cooperation.

Your problem is a bit deeper. We have to learn how to cooperate. If we stand on the lines and just yell whatever it is that we are told to and send in some goons to solve the problem and those goons are taking their orders from Wall Street then we are screwed.

Frankly, we may be standing on the brink of making significant changes to the education system as a whole. Loss only comes without participation. Neither side loses if we go this route.

By the same token, we can all focus on education and identify solutions but if we are steadily ignoring H1B visas, outsourcing and immigration then it doesn't do a dang bit of good.

Cooperation? Define it. Is it cooperation if it is all one way with no one with a different view being recognized?

Lately politics has been a "my way or the highway" attitude. Which isn't cooperation, it's bullying.

I agree that it has been a "my way or the highway" attitude and much of it is from those that profit from it and theatrics. But, the general public kind of shoots itself in the foot. When our wanna be elected officials are on the stage, we want them to tell us what we want to hear.............not about how legislation will work or the ramifications. Look, we don't tell them what we want them to do. It's like ..........you figure out the details while I get all emotional about a bunch of crap that you cannot accomplish because it is unconstitutional on its face.

A tiny example, liberals and conservatives agree that Zero Tolerance policies don't work. Why is it still there? If you are not the enemy and I am not the enemy. Why in the hell is it still there?

We (not you and I personally) have had many discussions on education. There are many issues that we are in agreement with. I bet I could find a helluvalot more. We can only do that if we clearly identify the issues.

 

[Disir]

It was never about "evil corporations". It was about the amount of power they have over congress and the legislation that they purchase.

The one that controls the power to change that is Congress, not corporations. Congress needs to set limits and neither party will do that.

That's how it is supposed to work. That's not how it actually works. So, they cut out the middle man and went straight to Wall Street. The argument was later made that it was somehow all about all corporations are evil. Intentionally moving the issue to extremes.

That is why Occupy Wall Street was such a farce, it attacked the symptom not the cause. Congress is and always has been the issue.

That's funny. Considering that the Tea Party was created from top to bottom by billionaires and your Tea Party group in Congress does exactly what the Heritage Foundation and Cato tells it to. They run their own numbers, control their own media and are largely involved in top to bottom for profit and heavy into the financial industry. This is why the Tea Party is a farce. It bought Congress.