In a recent post, one of our Gather minions of the Koch persuasion opined that the USA was becoming a Banana Republic because of the actions of President Obama. It wasn't the minion's own idea, of course. It came from an editorial in a hyperconservative "Financial" (by which I mean political) publication, and he felt it his bounded duty to spread the good word. But that's not the only source of this particular hysteria... you find it in every publication, except that most of them don't cite presidential actions as proof.
In fact, President Obama has done nothing that would move us in any such direction. "Banana Republic" defines a country that has had its assets and treasure consolidated into the smallest number of private hands. Unfortunately, in THAT sense, the idea that America is becoming a Banana Republic is too accurate to be comfortable. I said once that all we needed to do was to look at South America to see where we are headed economically. The response that I must be a fan of Hugo Chavez; a comment so stupid I didn't bother to respond. The fact is, this sort of economic stupidity lends itself to the election of the Chavez's of the world.
Since the middle '60s, America's "elite," her wealthiest citizens and corporations have been simply extracting money from her workers, her government budgets, and her smaller "job maker" companies (by the simple expedient of buying them and wrecking them), and isolating it from the economy.
I've been saying this in bits and pieces for the last two years. But this guy from Truth-out says it much better. The rich effectively seceding from America to protected enclaves and lives, leaving us to try to keep the country afloat. They don't believe they NEED a country, except for a skeleton government to issue them money and passports.
Read it and tell me where he's wrong.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 58
Not to mention that the man is a sick, misera... well, you know what I think of him as a person.
http://brownpelicanla.com/archives/81446
Margaret, If you think that Nancy Pelosi made tens of millions on one of the stimulus contracts with insider trading on energy stuff, he sure isn't on the take! He had about 25 NYT best sellers, he earned whatever he has! But I did not hear him say he wasn't rich. All things are relative, and taxes are on income, I doubt he will have too much this year.
You know, you often appear to me to be a teenager so the thought has never occurred to me that you might be Newt's mother. Are you?
y-y-yeppers
He's a politician, and as with all politicians, he will sound however he thinks people want him to sound. The facts, and his record, tell a different story, and he does PC just fine when the purpose is to advance his agenda, Char....
Do you promise me you're not his mother? It's got to be either youth or senility, Char.
I could not imagine a teenager being so enraptured by Newton.
The question is what will they leave behind.
Tax reform that lowers the burden on each middle class family while broadening the base. Simplification of the code so as to mitigate all the myriad ways that the wealthiest Americans avoid taxation. Those are a few starters.
As to how to improve patriotism, I'm not sure. How do you change how people feel? The 'it's fine for someone else, just not for me' has to stop, but of course, there's no easy way to do that.
You help set them free. You promote freedom, and Liberty. You encourage self-sifficiency, and independence, and promote charitable volunteerism, and merciful kindness. You praise and foster good team work, and joint-ventures. You supply good, honest examples of such. This is just for starters.
As to the others, I agree philosophically, but are you referring to simple sponsorship or something more concrete? Because if it's simple sponsorship, then that's more a matter of messaging than it is of substance. If its something more concrete, I'm not sure what, exactly you're referring to.
I don't mean to be 'hating on your creativity' to quote my daughter's favorite movie of late, but the problem is at such a high level, that I'm not sure your recommendations would reach.
On a separate note, OWS's approach is, I think, important, but ultimately futile. If they don't have an incremental, implementable, policy driven agenda, their arguments are going to largely sound like the squawkings of petulant children. 'Reform' is insufficiently specific. How do we intend to reform the system? Unfortunately, as with the TEA party, once you get into the weeds of what specific reforms are necessary, the intent of the movement fragments and dissolves until all you have left is an organization that tries to get someone (anyone) elected by any means possible. Not where OWS should go, IMHO.
What do you want? Do you want the rich to stop getting richer off our backs? Do you want your money back, and if so, how? That is my problem with the Occupy movement. I want to know what to do besides complain and whine.
But...
There's a name for this kind of argument, but it escapes me. Where you take the actual definintion and twist it.
Anyway, you're absolutely right. They're trying to get as much cash, valuables, land, etc so that they can sit on it like "king of the hill", and make everyone else their serfs. With the idea that he who dies with the most toys wins. I truly don't understand that thought process at all.
I have also witnessed the excessive materialism, "the world owes me X,Y, and/or Z", and the "if I want it now, I should have/I deserve it now, and I don't care if I cant afford/don't need/have no where to keep it" attitudes in a very up close and personal way.
Which then leads to the "let me show you all of my stuff and try to make you envious, and/or, buy it for yourself" behaviour, that I just soooo love to have shoved in my face.
by Harlan Ellison
me .... I have a mouth but feel our collective pain is still ignored.