General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis weekend ...
I ran into a family friend that owns an independent flower shop. Both, she and her husband are hard core teapartiers ... or should I say, WERE hardcore teapartiers.
In the course of our conversation, she stated she is really concerned about the income inequity problem we face. Specifically, she stated that while all the economic matrices suggest the economy is improving, this improvement is not finding its way to the people, its all going to the very rich ... and "the very rich don't buy enough flowers, or anything else, to support the economy."
This blew me away because not two years ago (during the election), we got into a heated discussion about President Obama versus Romney and how their respective agendas would impact the economy. Her position was Romney's cut taxes and regulations approach would be the salvation of the US economy ... I, on the other hand, argued that the only thing that would save the economy is President Obama's "more stimulus/broader social safety net" approach, as it would put money in the hands of the working classes' hands.
Now ... 2 years, and decreasing sales, later, the florist is seeing the point.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)That also might have something to do with their sudden change of heart.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)We didn't talk about that. But, I think her change of heart was the realization (as I had argued two years ago) that NO amount of tax breaks to the wealthy (including herself ... though she does not consider herself wealthy) and NO amount of regulation reduction would put the money in her customers' hands; the money they could then spend with her. I think my "what regulation could be repealed that would cause her to hire another employee, if she did not have the work to keep that employee busy ... How much of a tax cut would cause her to hire another employee, if she did not have the work to keep that employee busy ... How much of an increase in orders would she need to see in order to cause her to hire another person" argument finally got through.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Last edited Mon Jan 6, 2014, 11:06 PM - Edit history (1)
I did order flowers ... not so much in celebration; but just because my wife likes flowers, and I love my wife.
Cha
(313,103 posts)go! 
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)cannot afford to buy products and services. One day the assholes might get it.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)I say Reagan believed in VOLUNTARY income redistribution but that's turned out to be like "self regulating".
The rich claimed they WANTED to increase wages for their workers and hire more people but couldn't afford it because their taxes were too high. The rich were supposed to "trickle down" the wealth they were getting from Reagan but they pocketed it instead.
That hits conservatives in a new way where their worship of the rich is pitted against their love of all things Reagan.
Guess which they pick?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)
malaise
(286,827 posts)Democrats are way more intelligent than ReTHUG Teabaggers.
Brigid
(17,621 posts)I'll bet even the finest Econ 101 professor couldn't have taught them this lesson more effectively.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the first tenet of teapartydom reads:
Brigid
(17,621 posts)Namely, reduced sales at their flower shop. Facts are stubborn that way.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)crisis of faith!
Cha
(313,103 posts)your friends who have the Flower Shop would be helped by People across the spectrum having Enough MOney to buy the Freaking Flowers! I LOve Flowers, but when living on the Mainland in the winter they are a luxury to a lot of peeps that comes after so many other expenditures are met.
Thanks for sharing 1StrongBlackMan