It is time for a revolution. Government does not work for regular people. It appears to work quite well for big corporations, banks, insurance companies, military contractors, lobbyists, and for the rich and powerful. But it does not work for people.
The 1776 Declaration of Independence stated that when a long train of abuses by those in power evidence a design to reduce the rights of people to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it is the peoples right, in fact their duty to engage in a revolution...Look at what our current system has brought us and ask if it is time for a revolution?
Over 2.8 million people lost their homes in 2009 to foreclosure or bank repossessions – nearly 8000 each day – higher numbers than the last two years when millions of others also lost their homes.
At the same time, the government bailed out Bank of America, Citigroup, AIG, Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the auto industry and enacted the troubled asset (TARP) program with $1.7 trillion of our money.
Wall Street then awarded itself over $20 billion in bonuses in 2009 alone, an average bonus on top of pay of $123,000.
At the same time, over 17 million people are jobless right now. Millions more are working part-time when they want and need to be working full-time.
Yet the current system allows one single U.S. Senator to stop unemployment and Medicare benefits being paid to millions.
There are now 35 registered lobbyists in Washington DC for every single member of the Senate and House of Representatives, at last count 13,739 in 2009. There are eight lobbyists for every member of Congress working on the health care fiasco alone.
At the same time, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that corporations now have a constitutional right to interfere with elections by pouring money into races.
The article goes on to list other reasons why a revolution is necessary in the United States. One of the scariest ideas that I've been coming to terms with at college is the fact that as much as I want my federal government to work for me, it hasn't been able to very effectively and might not be able to at all in the future. Does this worry anyone else? Do you think we need a revolution? Are there any less drastic measures you think we could take in order to achieve some of the necessary areas of reform that this article points to?
This is a really interesting post. I can totally relate to what you're saying about our federal government not working for us very effectively now and that it might not do so in the future. Its a scary thought.
ReplyDeleteI do think that something needs to be done and that there definitely need to be changes made in regards to the way that the federal government operates. There are so many examples of the gov. working for big corporations, but not for its people. So, I suppose I do think that some sort of a revolution is needed.
A, E
I never really thought about how the federal government tends to support and help large corporations, the military, banks, insurance companies and other large organizations more then the people ourselves. The government does very few things that directly touch and help the people of our country, especially in hard economic times. The federal government is more worried about saving and helping bigger organizations probably because of fear that the American economy will fold completely if we lose the big organizations. In some sense this is logical, but I think the people of the United States, especially with the high unemployment rate and severe foreclosure on homes in some areas, need to be helped and given more economic support. The figures above do not seem right above at all. (A, T)
ReplyDeleteI disagree that a structural revolution is needed. When we had the revolution back in 1776 that was necessary because the British government simply did not grant the Americas their freedoms. At this point the Constitution does not need to be scrapped and completely redone, the system just needs to be more transparent so that where individual freedoms are not being granted we can correct for that. Revolution is a big word; what we need is more along the lines of Gandhian satyagraha campaigns assert the power of the people over the government. This notion is often laughed at but it worked to gain freedom from Britain so it doesn't seem like a joke to me. At the very least, it is unacceptable to have a violent revolution because that would be fighting evil with evil and the ends don't justify the means.
ReplyDeleteEconomically, it would be a disaster to try and have a giant revolution because there is so much chaos. Given the fact the our political system is only deteriorating and but thoroughly corrupt, it would be better for the lives of American citizens if we try to alter our political expectations rather than dismantle our entire government. A, E
I have realized that the government doesn't necessarily take care of the individual citizen and simply hopes that the money trickles down to them but I never really took it to heart. The federal government supports big businesses because so many people work for them and by keeping these companies afloat people are more likely to keep their jobs. There isn't a need for a revolution because that is pretty extreme. I think stimuli directed more at the local level would be beneficial at helping regular citizens. A
ReplyDeleteI realized that our government is ridiculously corrupt and America may be crashing a few years ago. Since then, I've thought about moving to Australia, (which is now in a drought) Europe, (which is expensive because America is in shambles) and Iceland (there is nothing in Iceland, I've visited). I don't really know what to do about the government or our country, but I am really worried, especially since I've reached the golden adult age of 18. E
ReplyDeleteAlthough a revolution may be a strong word, the government is defunct, it simply does not work anymore, its become far to big to be able to fufill its original purpose, and is in fact working against american principals. It is time to find a drastic solution, because the social-government framework thats being setup is making no progress, and i'm becoming very frustrated with both democrats and republicans. I see neither party as being worth a dam.
ReplyDeleteThe government is not directly in control of the economy, WE ARE. The current crisis was caused because the government de-regulated markets and let them be. This means it was we, the citizens who messed up. We, the home owners, the credit card users, the small buisness owners. The government's purpose is not to run the economy, it is to regulate it. The government is like a referee in a sports match. Only a sore looser blames the ref for a poorly played game. So I do not think that we need a political revolution. Quite the opposite, we need a political awakening. People should take responsiblity, and make positive changes. They should run campaigns, vote, write to their senator, ect.
ReplyDeleteA
I believe that there ought to be a political and economic reform in the United States but I do not agree with the idea of a revolution. What exactly would this revolution entail, what would be its results and what methods would the revolutionists used to have a better government?
ReplyDeleteGovernment and politics is a very tricky issue. Most if not all governments are made up of some of the richest and most powerful people in the country. They become members of the Fed because of their wealth or the sponsor from other wealthy people to run their campaigns and such. Hence, they will continue to look out for the well being of the wealthy because it helps them to remain in the government.
It is scary to think about the power of the government. But I don't think that they are only looking out for the rich and powerful. Sometimes their policies help to improve the lives of working middle class families as well. A
Though I do not fully agree with it, Caleb brings up an interesting point. Federal deregulation theoretically put the task to the consumer, who promptly accepted whatever they were told and spiraled into debt. The American people is at fault, but it is not fair to focus exclusively the average person.
ReplyDeleteI would partially agree with Becca, particularly her statement that a universal structural revolution would be undesirable. The constitution, though fundamentally flawed in several ways and in dangerous need of renewal, is a fundamentally sound document: it incorporates a perfect degree of clarity and ambiguity that allows a government to evolve and adapt to changing circumstances. Unfortunately, self-interest has led to the establishment of strong ties between those wielding significant governmental power and those wielding significant economic power. These entrenched interests are a venom paralyzing our democracy.
The political machines of the Gilded Age were little better, but concerted effort by ideologues and general increase in political awareness among the population helped counteract this throughout the mid-20th Century. But today we lack many of the socioeconomic drives that encourage a well-informed and active populace.
Just like a developmental economics class would catch my interest, so, too, would a course on the economics of revolution. A great number of political upheavals have, at their base, pervasive economic grievances. That said, the troubles of today are far from capable of instigating significant political upheaval, let alone revolution, armed or not. This is not to say that the problems with the status quo are not worthy of fixing, but that there is little impetus to push the average American away from his or her cable TV to agitate for change.
Revolution is a big word to be throwing around, but I do believe something needs to be done when it comes to the federal government. It really is unfortunate that our politics these days have become so consumed with their parties. Elected officials are making decisions based on how well they represent their political party, not based on what the people want. This style of big party politics can really hurt some people, like the article mentions with the single senator stopping millions of people from recieving benefits. I think the attitude of the federal government needs to change and they need to focus more on the people and less on impressing their party constituents.
ReplyDeleteSome sort of makeover is needed. It was powerful then, and it is powerful today--"when a long train of abuses by those in power evidence a design to reduce the rights of people to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it is the peoples right, in fact their duty to engage in a revolution". There are much different contexts today than when theis was originally written, but it still drives home a point and leaves us feeling like we can and must do something--something big.
ReplyDeleteA
I agree tht something needs to be done about the federal government. It just simply does not work anymore, and it is too flawed. We need to create some sort of solution that prohibits government officials from doing what they please. They have gone out of their way to be selfish and think of themselves as the first priority. Government officials also focus a lot on their parties and impressing the people involved. This has had a very negative effect on our country.
ReplyDeleteI think what we need is reform, not a revolution.
ReplyDeleteOut of all (mostly) capitalist countries, I think we're doing the best so far. I think the idea of a total revolution is way unnecessary and way too radical. We're pretty lucky to have the rights and freedoms that we do - those don't exist everywhere.
However, I'm skeptical about attempts at reform working. Government always grows. It really never shrinks. We need to tackle problems one at a time.
A, E
I don’t think a revolution is really needed, yes, everyone can see that the government does more for big corporations or rich people but we also have to consider the privileges and freedom that we have. We can’t give up when hard times hit the crisis; to make the circular flow work we need to contribute to it and work with other to have the prosperous country that everyone once wanted to migrate because of their success. E.A
ReplyDeleteA lot of polititions focus on themselve and how to get themselves reelected. This is a problem, but a revolution is hardly necessary. Just changes in laws and better enforcment of the current ones being broken by government officials. The problem is the people in power to change and enforce the laws are the ones breaking them. So it has to come from us becoming more informed voters and becoming more involved in the government if we truly want it to change.
ReplyDeleteI think people overreact sometimes to what they hear or see. For example, the majority of people on TV are political talking heads. Although America is in recovery, the reason the economy fell is because of the poor decisions by the public, and the government kept them afloat through the bailouts. So although corporations do influence a lot of politics, when has the government ever been influence free? Furthermore, the government structure works well and allows for a stable transition of power. The problem is with the people elected and partisanship, however it is the public who has the power to choose who is in office. Moreover, the government takes care of the people and promotes consumerism and growth through tax policies and economic plans like the stimulus plan. So revolution is not needed, but more involvement rather than complaining is needed. America is not perfect, but if we can all still afford to still attend college, being really expensive, in "The Great Recession", then I am proud to be from here, because it means we as a nation have done a lot of stuff right so far.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree. Something does need to change the federal government; the weaknesses are far too significant and obvious. When officials are given too much power, it can be very easy to take advantage of it. I agree with Mike, when he says that there has to be some kind of limitation on government officials. These officials need to learn how to spend money wisely, as well as how to manage their own power in general.
ReplyDelete