|
Some here make a distinction between "government" and "corporation." As in the statement, "The problem is not Wall Street, it's the government." The Occupy Movement would probably respond to this by saying that the problem is that the government is now only serving the interests of corporations, that you cannot get into elected office without corporate donations and backing, and that, in short, the government equals the corporations. You will note that many people in the U.S. believe that what we need in the White House is a business man, someone who knows business, like Herman Cain. Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann boast of having run businesses, as well. Does this make sense? Does an M.B.A. prepare anyone to be a statesman? Do we want someone who has spent his or her life as a partisan of business to look after our interests? Deregulation in the name of profit? Doing away with the EPA in the name of profit? Destroying the land, the water, the planet in the name of profit? Furthermore, it was the deregulation of banking (by both the Democrats and the Republicans) that led to crisis in mortgage-backed securities, etc.
Some have also gone down the road of "If these people had a job . . ." or "These people should stop whining and get a job . . . ." Indeed, if jobs — decent jobs, good jobs, any jobs — could be had, there would likely be no protest of this kind. Wealth inequality, the decimation of the middle class, and the concentration of capital and access to capital are parts of the problem.
There has also been some pseudo-demagogery about "socialism," a word that is used incorrectly and used for the purpose of inflaming emotions. There is no socialism in the U.S. If there were, you would know it. Having a conscience and recognizing our responsibility to help other human beings is not socialism. That is not to say that every "entitlement program" (another inflammatory term) is perfect.
Just thinkin' out loud here. :happy0180:
|