Forum Post: Just another Canadian perspective - is it all that un-American?
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 16, 2011, 12:59 p.m. EST by CanMooks78
(5)
from Montreal, QC
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Manifesting discontent with Wall Street and big bankers is great, but to what effect?
Banks are where they are because they lined senator pockets with cash and senators agree to push the banks corporate interests. Corporate Monopolies exist in America because the senate does nothing to stop them, Healthcare in America is quasi non-existent because the senate prevented it from being a dependable and effective measure. Americans simply let senators take money from corporations.
Let's review for a moment:
1) Obama proposes healthcare reform and free basic healthcare for all Americans. 2) Insurance companies say: "no way, the government will be dipping into our profits." 3) Insurance companies form a lobby, the lobby spends as much cash as needed to buy the senator's vote on the healthcare reform bill. 4) The healthcare reform ends up being a mere symbolic reflection, a joke. The bill failed because your senators refused to say no to the Insurance Industry, nothing more, and wait, it gets better! 5) Revenues for the insurance companies remain high thanks to your senate. The insurance companies then spend millions on advertising to drill the message that regulating healthcare is wrong, and eventually, Americans fall back in-line with the will of a multi-billion dollar industry. 6) The senator made so much cash that his campaign now bears the slogan, HealthCare is for Socialists...beware!
Are Americans better off? How are the insurance corporations doing?
Here's a thought, what happened to the question of Healthcare Insurance profits since the vote on the healthcare reform bill? Has America already forgotten??
This goes on and on...with big oil, with big banks, with the military, with private education and just about any other industry...
Is it normal that Corporations should have more political weight than the American People?
Is it normal that shareholder interests for profit are more important than common interests for American civil benefit.
Ask your Senator!
They'll tell you it is unpatriotic and socialist to vote for "social" good. As if they believed Americans would remain dumb enough for long enough to stop asking questions about socialist values.
They will tell you it is un-American to manifest your discontent with the gap between being ridiculously rich and being ridiculously unfavored by the system.
They will take more money from corporations, and simply keep drilling this message with no relent.
If your want change,
STOP SENATORS from TAKING MONEY from LOBBYISTS, and the rest will follow.
Advice from your Canadian Neighbors
u'r welcome rastafiAm.
http://www.american.com/archive/2010/february/due-north-canadas-marvelous-mortgage-and-banking-system
PlasmaStorm,
I'll grant you that the term corporate monopolies is in this case is wrongfully used and I am aware that your anti-trust legislation prevents such formations.
As for how corporations hurt consumers, just visit the better business bureau. Those they are really hurting however are the unemployed who used to work for them, whose jobs have been transferred to foreign labor markets, all in the name of (drumbroll please) share price. That's right, a better yield on your stock will increase demand of that stock. But the truth is, and that's what this whole movement is really about, your common american doesn't own that stock. 42% of stock is owned by 1% of the people.
And i'd implore you to reconsider what your average American would think of Patent law when it directly infringes, for example, on his/her right to the best treatment for an ailment. Yet for some reason, the Department of Defense reserves itself the right to circumvent patent law in the name of national security. I suppose national health is unwarranted then, socialist ?
Voting for socialism bad? Look around you! The entire world outside of the US practices some form of socialism, can it really be that bad???
Thank you!
I loved this line "Ask your Senator! - They'll tell you it is unpatriotic and socialist to vote for "social" good. As if they believed Americans would remain dumb enough for long enough to stop asking questions about socialist values."
http://occupywallst.org/forum/steps-to-success/
Yes, some will never see it, though.
Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, our neighbor Canada - all with facets of "socialism" but still free and open societies. Very successful and with higher ratings on prosperity and standard of living scales than the United States.
Americans would rather cling to their hate & fear than set up a system that treats their neighbor with kindness.
I say where in the constitution does it say the government is supposed to provide you health insurance or for that matter healthcare?
If it's a power nit specifically granted to the federal government in the constitution, then the federal government can not provide it! That should be left up to each state and it's citizens to decide on it's own.
I say wipe your bum bum with that tattered piece of paper called "the constitution". It doesn't mean a damn thing unless you actually believe in democracy.
I believe in the democracy the founding fathers implemented. It works the most fair of any nation current or in history. The gradual move to communism and ignoring the constitution is what is causing the social unrest. Its a clash between those who want communism and those who believe in personal freedom and self responsibility.
I'm all for personal responsibility and individual freedom, I don't think anyone involved in this movement is against that. What is this specter of communism? Isn't that the monopolization of industry? Then what is the 1% but the small elite monopolizers? We all need to reevaluate our own definitions of what is because our world has changed around us, despite our decaying founding fathers. The only thing communistic about this movement is it's concern with the commons.
Well there sure are a lot of people demanding wage earning caps, compulsory giving to the poor, guaranteed jobs, and guaranteed healthcare.
I grew up on a whole set of other ideals. Work hard, keep what you need, help those in need around you, and maybe splurge on yourself once in a while. Never take a loan you can't pay, you're not owed a job, or healthcare. You lose your job because your trade moved overseas or there was a downturn in the economy, you re-invent yourself, see what fields are in demand and go and meet them.
There's a really good book dealing with change called "Who moved my cheese".
The story of humans is, change, adapt, or fall behind and possible die. No body owes you anything except yourself.
It is certainly questionable. Also, where does it say in the constitution that the government is suppose to provide people grade and high school education, or what about fire protection....hell I don't need taxes to be spent on a fire department. I live in an apartment that I rent. If it burns down my renter insurance pays. And I don't even have kids so why the hell am I expected to pay money for my neighbors kids to go to school. And this whole federal road building thing is just plain BS...I don't use the damn interstates so why the hell do my taxes pay for it??? Do you have any idea of how much State and Federal money gets dumped into Libraries? If I want a book I go buy the damn thing.
But the one that really gets me going is the Federal money dumped into the space program. Am I going to be taking a ride in a space ship...hell no. The only thing the Federal Gov. should be doing is delivering the mail and maintaining a military.
Exactly. If it's not in the constitution it is specifically spelled out that those powers belong with the individual states and the citizens. That's why police, fire, libraries are run by the state and local governments. Not the federal government. You just proved you don't understand the constitution.
Police, fire and libraries also receive federal money in the way of grants as do local schools. There is no part of the constitution that says the federal government should be giving money to these local services....but again the two big ones are the space program and the interstate hwy system.....You proved you don't know what you are talking about.
The federal government doesn't run them. They just contribute some money. Should they do it. No, but they're not constitutionally forbidden from contributing. They're forbidden from providing it.
The highways are a national security issue. They were implemented by Eisenhower so the military could move equipment across the country quickly.
The side effect was that also businesses could move their goods across the country easily as well. Most east coast states make people pay tolls to use the highways. So only the people who use it, pay for it.
Well now...a National Security Issue. Yes! And that is why federal money was first allotted to States for Education because the military complained about the literacy level of those who were conscripted during WW I. Federal standards were applied as well as the money to get it done. Now if the security of a nation is dependent on the literacy of its citizens then the health of those same people also become a security issue. The only 2 things allowed for payment in any way by the constitution are the Military and the Mail. Everything else is based on 'our personal priorities and has nothing to do with what is stated in the constitution...don't believe me...read the constitution!
The constitution guarantees life, and without the ability to buy health insurance, your pursuit of life and happiness is severely hindered.
Btw the constitution named African-Americans as 3/5 of a person, so I'd imagine we don't read it like fundamentalists read the bible.
If that is so, why wasn't health care in at the start of the nation? It not a right, it's not an entitlement.
Your guarantee of life meant that the government isn't going to arbitrarily going to pick who can live and who can not. Remember under king George he could say you die and you were hung.
Your guarantee to life is the government can't single you out to kill you.
The nation was formed in the late 1700s, health care as we know is was non-existent. (George Washington died of a severe flu, partially because they tried to drain his blood as a "cure") . Antibiotics and the vast majority of the advances in health care were made in the 20th century.
I would argue that allowing healthcare (an in-elastic product) to work with anti-trust exemptions is a way of singling out who gets to live and who doesn't. But instead of it being arbitrary, it's based on income.
You claim corporate monopolies exist in America. Which corporate monopolies? Hurting the average consumer, really?
You say corporations have more political weight than the American people. How, exactly? Corporations are owned by the American people. And it's not like the average citizen cares about patent law (for instance). This is one of many issues where corporations must have an interest and the ordinary citizen really doesn't.
Being against companies doesn't help anything. It really doesn't.
Voting for socialism is bad.
I'll grant you that the term corporate monopolies is in this case is wrongfully used and I am aware that your anti-trust legislation prevents such formations.
As for how corporations hurt consumers, just visit the better business bureau. Those they are really hurting however are the unemployed who used to work for them, whose jobs have been transferred to foreign labor markets, all in the name of (drumbroll please) share price. That's right, a better yield on your stock will increase demand of that stock. But the truth is, and that's what this whole movement is really about, your common american doesn't own that stock. 42% of stock is owned by 1% of the people.
And i'd implore you to reconsider what your average American would think of Patent law when it directly infringes, for example, on his/her right to the best treatment for an ailment. Yet for some reason, the Department of Defense reserves itself the right to circumvent patent law in the name of national security. I suppose national health is unwarranted then, socialist ?
Voting for socialism bad? Look around you! The entire world outside of the US practices some form of socialism, can it really be that bad???
"Corporations are owned by the American people. And it's not like the average citizen cares about patent law (for instance). This is one of many issues where corporations must have an interest and the ordinary citizen really doesn't."
No, corporations can be gigantic, multi-national entities responsible to only their share holders.
Health insurance and electricity are legal corporate monopolies.
It's really simple. Corporations have more political weight because they have been granted "corporate personhood" and the right to "donate" (bribe) unlimited amounts of money to lawmakers. In turn, it is almost impossible to be elected to federal positions of power unless one is willing to accept corporate money and act out the will of the corporations who paid these bribes. We are essentially being controlled by the mafia.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/05/AR2005080502015.html
End paid lobbying, period.