Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Aug 13, 2011 in TG Roundup, USA

Vaniti Fair: Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

I am sick and tired of  a vocal minority calling the US as or becoming a socialist country. These loud mouths are controlling the debate and somehow the masses are falling for it. A country where most wealth is concentrated among the top 5% of the wealthy people is not and will never be a socialist country. I don’t consider the current day US to be a true representative democracy either. Oligarchy may be too strong to describe the nature of US government. A country run by the President,  the Congress and the Supreme Court – bought and paid for by special interest groups is at best a plutocracy.

BTW, did you check out the recent rant by Dylan Ratigan on this subject?

In the next few days, I will link to various articles and data sources to debunk this nonsense that US is becoming a socialist country. Here is an article in the latest Vanity Fair. Some points from the article:

  • Wealth begets power, which begets more wealth. During the savings-and-loan scandal of the 1980s—a scandal whose dimensions, by today’s standards, seem almost quaint—the banker Charles Keating was asked by a congressional committee whether the $1.5 million he had spread among a few key elected officials could actually buy influence. “I certainly hope so,” he replied.
  • The Supreme Court, in its recent Citizens United case, has enshrined the right of corporations to buy government, by removing limitations on campaign spending. The personal and the political are today in perfect alignment.
  • Virtually all U.S. senators, and most of the representatives in the House, are members of the top 1 percent when they arrive, are kept in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they serve the top 1 percent well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave office.
  • By and large, the key executive-branch policymakers on trade and economic policy also come from the top 1 percent.
  • When pharmaceutical companies receive a trillion-dollar gift—through legislation prohibiting the government, the largest buyer of drugs, from bargaining over price—it should not come as cause for wonder.
  • It should not make jaws drop that a tax bill cannot emerge from Congress unless big tax cuts are put in place for the wealthy. Given the power of the top 1 percent, this is the way you would expect the system to work.

Contrary to their claims, the Tea Party has no roots in some anti-socialist ideology. Rather, the Tea Party is a movement orchestrated by a minority who has difficulty accepting the result of a popular election. What else will explain the fact that this self proclaimed gross-roots movement has its first significant demonstration against a popularly elected President only 2 months after the new President takes the oath of office?

 

 

5 Comments

  1. You say that the president has been a sellout for big money interests. The tea party guys say president is a socialist because he created the biggest entitlement program (which they dubbed as Obamacare). How can both be correct? Did the President create / advocate policies that offended both the right and the left? I think the left is more unfair to the President, and are likely to cause more harm than the tea-party hardliners.

  2. Govinda,

    I don’t think it is contradiction at all. Republicans gained 70 seats. Not all of them are tea party reps. How many people do they represent? How many people does the president represented when teap party “gross roots” started?

    To blame Obama for all the problems, which the tea arty does is sheer nonsense. And, they started doing it as soon as he took oath of office.

    I am not at all upset at protesting against Obama. In fact I have been saying that he has been a sellout for big money interests. Tea party doesn’t reflect my sentiment and discontent with an entirely corrupt system. Their outrage is ideological – just partisan hardliners. No taxes. N government. And for some of them, “no black presidents”

  3. I think there is a little bit of contradiction in this analysis. Both the president and 70+ tea party members of the house were elected by the same process. You can not say one is popular and legitimate and others are not. If you believe that the president, congress and the supreme court are bought and paid for by the special interest groups, why are you so upset if someone is protesting against the president?

  4. Mohan garu,

    how about theocracy?! Rick Perry is in the fray now! ‘God’ save this country.

    –Ramana