It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is it just the economy? Other issues may play role

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 08:01 PM

For three months, the economy by most measures has faltered. Yet the White House contest has remained locked in place, with the incumbent holding on to a slight national lead or in a virtual tie with his rival. Analysts from both parties have no doubt that absent a defining, unpredictable moment, the race will remain neck and neck until November. That, several strategists say, means secondary issues such as health care, immigration, education, even little mentioned social issues such as abortion, guns or gay rights could make a difference when targeted to the right audiences. Under those conditions, the advantage, these strategists say, rests with Obama.
AP NEWSNow I find commentary like this interesting. This may turn into a longer thread introduction than usual, so please bear with me until I've laid out some important points of interest.First and foremost, I haven't seen or heard much commentary from the MSM or the predominant political parties that truly address the real underlying issues that plague not only the U.S. economy, but every economy that spans the globe. One of the few notable commentaries that I've recently had the pleasure to listen to was an address given by REP Bernie Sanders to the senate. For those who may not have heard it, here it is. Might I add, this is coming from a representative that runs off of an independent ticket. I feel this gives REP Sanders more of a leash as far as the ability to voice his concerns for the true issues.
This address to the Senate very much points a finger at the real economic issues, and the growing resentment of the American people. These are points of interest that MSM and political entities tip toe around without directly addressing. To directly address these issues by either the media or political representatives would be an overt attack against their own interests. This is why I see secondary social issues such as gay rights, abortion, and immigration pushed to the forefront to polarize the populace. Another perfect example of social issues polarizing the populace was the Martin Zimmerman fiasco. Conveniently capitalized on by the Obama administration. This is not to say these social issues are not important, they do hold a place of significance. But when looking at the bigger picture they seem to be magnified to keep citizens from focusing on the real issue of fair and balanced land and wealth distribution. The term "can't see the forest for the trees" come to mind when these issues take precedence over the economic pit we are falling into as a society. I had read some commentary sometime in the past couple of weeks that called the 99% "the non providers". I wish I remembered or bookmarked the article to use for a reference,. but I did not. With that being said, that statement perfectly illustrates how the higher classes of society feel about the lower ones. I remember thinking "please don't hold back, tell us how you really feel about the lower classes". This "non provider" mentality is where the sense of entitlement originates from the higher classes.Non providers? Really? So who are the "non providers"? Nurses? Firemen? Police officers? Construction workers? Or are they the bankers, CEO's, politicians, stock brokers, and big business owners? Now when I use the term big business I'm not talking about mom and pops doughnut shop down the street. I'm talking about large corporate interests such as WalMart, Nike, Apple, ect, ect.Now the predominant argument for big business being providers is the employment they produce. This is true, but how much of the wealth being produced is fairly distributed to their employees? How much profit do the CEO's and owners of these businesses get compared to their actual employees. The official numbers as REP Sanders points out are astounding. My argument is that big business provides nothing more than poverty to the lower classes. So yes, these entities are providers in a sense. Providers of poverty.Many people have an issue with wealth and land redistribution. I see this as the wrong argument, a slight of hand. I see wealth and land hoarding to be the real issue we need to confront head on as a civilization. Until we do the rumbling we hear under our feet will continue to get more and more noticeable, until it peaks at full revolt and chaos. Don't believe me? Just let things continue to go down the road they're currently on. Then we'll see who was right and who was wrong. These protests around the world are just the beginning as the common people begin to realize the game they are playing, and how they are being played.I know this was a long post, but if you read it I thank you.
edit on 14-7-2012 by GD21D because: (no reason given)

new topics

log in