US uncut protests

Shadow Dragon

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
4,773
Reaction score
261
Location
In the land of dragons
A little over two weeks ago, Carl Gibson, a 23-year-old former Mississippi Public Radio reporter fired for leaking Mississippi Public Broadcasting emails, was inspired by the grassroots protests of poor and middle-class British citizens facing deep budget cuts.

The UK Uncut movement targets corporate tax dodgers and was spread largely by social media, as were the protests in Cairo and Tunisia. The template for bringing that model of grassroots direct action to the United States was described in an essay by the Nation's Johann Hari, "How to Build A Progressive Tea Party." Gibson's father sent the article to him as something he ought to look into himself.

[snip]

"We want to reframe the national debate about how to deal with this recession: Instead of saying 'what can we cut from the budget because we can't possibly raise taxes on anyone,' why don't we make the two-thirds of corporations that don't pay any income taxes pay their fair share? If we did, the U.S. Treasury would recoup $100 billion a year, a trillion dollars in a decade," he says.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/art-levine/us-uncut-spreads-spirit-o_b_828058.html

It great to see protests like these. You constantly hear politicians talk about balancing the budget and thats why they need to cut the police budget, education budget and medicare. And yet they then cause the state to lose billions for the sake of tax cuts to corporations that are already making a big profit. If the debt is ever going to be fixed, something has to be done about the constant tax cuts and corporate loopholes.
 

Bartholomew

Comic guy
Kind Benefactor
Poetry Book Collaborator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
8,507
Reaction score
1,956
Location
Kansas! Again.
But multi-billion dollar corporations are people, too!

(They really are; the law treats them as a legal entity. See? I made a funny.)

The problem with these protests is that they're not suggesting a way for us to wean our politicians off of the corporate-dollar teat. We established this election cycle, which means we need to decide how we want our politicians to fund their campaigns every few years. Since we seem to hate the idea of publicly funding politician's campaigns... well, look at that, private support comes along. And influences the politician. And kills any chance we have of collecting tax money from the giant companies.

Fortunately, some recent legislation is going to add oversight and regulation to the way these corporations are allowed to fund political campaigns, and I expect that, while this won't repair the problem of the politician's loyalty to the general public versus his specific funders, it will make it easier for individual contributors to have palpable influence on a politician--if you don't completely object to a political system where the people who gave the maximum amount during campaign time get to say how the government works for the next few years.

I mind. :)

...did I already derail this? Sorry.