The US is a Banana Republic With No Bananas According to IMF Experts

[Makalakumu]

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/03/experts-on-third-world-banana-republics.html

Who are the leading experts on third world banana republics?

Probably those at the International Monetary Fund with years of experience lending money to corrupt regimes after their excess became so out of hand that they needed emergency assistance.

Today, two top IMF officials said that the U.S. has become a third world banana republic

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/06/president-of-federal-reserve-bank-of.html

As I have previously pointed out, two top IMF officials and the former Vice President of the Dallas Federal Reserve have all warned that the U.S. has been taken over by an oligarchy.

Wednesday, the head of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Thomas Hoenig, agreed:

If we hesitate to make needed changes, we will perpetuate an oligarchy of interests that will fail to serve the best interests of business, the consumer and the U.S. economy...

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/06/second-powerful-congressman-says-banks.html

Last month, the number two ranking Democrat in the Senate, Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), said: "Frankly, banks own the place."

Now, Collin Peterson, Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, is saying the same thing.

“The banks run the place,” Peterson told the New York Times in Monday’s editions. “I will tell you what the problem is — they give three times more money than the next biggest group. It’s huge the amount of money they put into politics.”

I don't know if you can totally single out the US here. This seems to be a world wide problem. This is why I posted it in the Study. Anyway, what are your thoughts?

 

[Empty Hands]

End the fiction that corporations are persons and are entitled to unlimited campaign contributions. For that matter, even actual persons have a hard limit for contributing to candidates! Even better, go with publicly funded elections, and end both the special interest money capture of our candidates and the ever increasing spiral of campaign spending.

 

[Big Don]

End the fiction that corporations are persons and are entitled to unlimited campaign contributions. For that matter, even actual persons have a hard limit for contributing to candidates! Even better, go with publicly funded elections, and end both the special interest money capture of our candidates and the ever increasing spiral of campaign spending.

Apply the same limits to unions!
Special interests like NOW, PETA, Greenlining, etc? Oh, no, you don't mean them, do you?

 

[Big Don]

banana republic
n. A small country that is economically dependent on a single export commodity, such as bananas, and is typically governed by a dictator or the armed forces. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Keywords in that definition: SMALL COUNTRY/SINGLE EXPORT COMMODITY/DICTATOR.
No, the US is no banana republic. Bad as Obama is (Second coming of Jimmy Carter) he is not a dictator.

 

[grydth]

End the fiction that corporations are persons and are entitled to unlimited campaign contributions. For that matter, even actual persons have a hard limit for contributing to candidates! Even better, go with publicly funded elections, and end both the special interest money capture of our candidates and the ever increasing spiral of campaign spending.

I think this is 'on the money' with regards to corporate perversion of our political process. The very notion of this huge corporate political expenditure being in any way a "contribution" is simple fiction.... when you give to the American Cancer Society, that is a contribution. When huge sums are handed over in an election, that's a downpayment on their soul.... and their votes in office. Campaign 'donors' have become candidate owners.

One need look no further than AIG's political "contributions" before the bailouts. Small wonder they received bonuses and bailouts despite massive misconduct.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Apply the same limits to unions!
Special interests like NOW, PETA, Greenlining, etc? Oh, no, you don't mean them, do you?

Actually it wouldn't be a bad idea to curb the influence of those special interest groups. With the recent supreme court decision that allows companies to campaign for political elections using company money, you are getting closer to the point where the political hot seats are simply auctioned off to the highest bidder.

 

[crushing]

One need look no further than AIG's political "contributions" before the bailouts. Small wonder they received bonuses and bailouts despite massive misconduct.

If anyone is curious about the numbers:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7110145&page=1

Here's the list of top AIG recipients for the 2008 campaign:
1. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., $103,100
2. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., $101,332
3. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., $59,499
4. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., $35,965
5. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., $24,750
6. Former Gov. Mitt Romney, (R) Pres $20,850
7. Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., $19,975
8. Rep. John Larson, D-Conn, $19,750
9. Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., $18,500
10. Former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani (R) Pres $13,200
11. Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa., $12,000
12. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., $11,000

 

[Deaf Smith]

Let's see....

Looks like 8 Dems and four Republicans, that's about right.

No, I don't think Republicans are angles, but Democrats seem to love that money so much more.

Now as for the Banana Republic...

If the Constitution had simply in the Bill of Rights, stated that any and all laws made MUST apply to EVERY citizen equally, specifically including all branches of the government, then alot of these stupid corrupt laws would not have been made.

You see Congress, their staffers, the Prez, etc.. are all EXEMPT from many of the laws we face. Yes exempt. As if they are somehow so special.

I don't mind corporations donating money, or ads, as any corporation is made up of STOCKHOLDERS, and they are citizens just as much as any of us. But, our representatives have been allowed to run wild for so long, use our own money to bribe voting blocks, and just do everything with no recourse (yes recourse.) Even if you vote them out they get a very cushy pension.

And that is the real problem. For you see the term 'accountability' should have something more negative in connotation that just being voted out of office with a 'golden' parachute.

Oh, and one more thing. Back when the country first started ONLY landed people could vote (and only men at that.) The idea was that property owners had more of a stake in the outcome than others.

Well today women and all minorities can vote without hindrance (voter ID is another matter) but we have made it to where welfare queens and kings get to vote, insane people living under bridges get to vote, illegals get to vote, and well, you see what that does to common sense in places like California.

So maybe we need to have another amendment. Let it say, ‘no income tax paid, no vote.’ Or something to that effect.

Deaf

 

[Big Don]

So maybe we need to have another amendment. Let it say, ‘no income tax paid, no vote.’ Or something to that effect.

Deaf

BLAM! 45% of the country is disenfranchised!
That would bring a revolution.

 

[blindsage]

Oh, and one more thing. Back when the country first started ONLY landed people could vote (and only men at that.) The idea was that property owners had more of a stake in the outcome than others.

Well today women and all minorities can vote without hindrance (voter ID is another matter) but we have made it to where welfare queens and kings get to vote, insane people living under bridges get to vote, illegals get to vote, and well, you see what that does to common sense in places like California.

So maybe we need to have another amendment. Let it say, ‘no income tax paid, no vote.’ Or something to that effect.

Deaf

LOL! Yes, the problem with the government is that poor people and minorities are allowed to vote. With all those government positions they've had access to, held and corrupted in the last 200 years it's obvious that it's all their fault.

:rofl: Please keep the jokes rollin'.

 

[Deaf Smith]

But you forget... that IS how the country first started. They DIDN'T vote.

And now the 'welfare' vote is a powerful voting block.

Deaf

 

[blindsage]

I didn't forget, I'm just amused at the notion that it could be more their fault than the long term entrenched interests of the group represented by the original voting block that has continued to retain the vast majority of political power since the country's inception. Somehow it's your argument that those with the least overall political power in the history of this country are those most at fault for the current state of affairs.

:rofl: Thanks for continuing the laughs.

 

[Sukerkin]

So maybe we need to have another amendment. Let it say, ‘no income tax paid, no vote.’ Or something to that effect.

Deaf

I've said much the same myself before now - "no representation without taxation" was the twist I put on a familiar phrase, I believe.

 

[Sukerkin]

I can see the point that Blindsage is making but I do think that keeping the 'bread and circuses' going to promote an illusion of democracy (and stave off a revolution of the 'have nots') has had a corrosive effect on the choices made by the system.

 

[blindsage]

I can see the point that Blindsage is making but I do think that keeping the 'bread and circuses' going to promote an illusion of democracy (and stave off a revolution of the 'have nots') has had a corrosive effect on the choices made by the system.

So the poor should be disenfranchised? The influence of those with money, position, and access to those in power has had a less corrosive effect?

 

[Sukerkin]

I think you're drawing the wrong conclusion from what I wrote, Sage. What I was saying is that the choices being made to keep the masses aquiescent, for the benefit of the 'haves', are having a long-term corrosive effect, not only on the system of governance but also upon the prospects of those at the bottom and society as a whole.

Disenfranchisement is not what I was recommending. Without some semblance of a 'say' in the process then you end up back at revolution once again - even with bread and circuses. Mind you, some argue that what primarily caused the downfall of the Roman empire was the over-liberal spread of their analogue of the franchise, citizenship.

However, willful refusal to 'contribute' to the society of which you are a part is a valid grounds for denial of a 'voice' in determining how that society is organised and run. If you are not contributing because that is your choice, then it is only fair that there is a price for such selfishness.

It is of course possible to take the position that society has evolved to be inherently unfair in and of itself and there is a certain amount of truth in that. Those that have stolen, defrauded and murdered more successfully than their fellows have ended up on top ... ooops, sorry, I meant "laboured harder and more determinedly than their fellows to honestly better their status" :lol:.

There are no easy answers and I have ever argued that it is impossible to discuss these complex matters with any intelligence on-line because we must perforce speak in sound-bites (which it seems are inevitably twisted to mean something other than we intended).

But you never know ... one day one of us might have a bright idea that could actually change things for the better ...

 

[Big Don]

How about a 10 question multiple choice test on the US Constitution and current events at the polling booth, fail and you don't vote.
Or would that unfairly disenfranchise the stupid?

 

[Sukerkin]

Ooh you tempt the Meritocrat within me with that one Don .

 

[Makalakumu]

How about a 10 question multiple choice test on the US Constitution and current events at the polling booth, fail and you don't vote.
Or would that unfairly disenfranchise the stupid?

They used to do that to blacks in the South in order to prevent them from voting. The segregated education system pretty much ensured that blacks wouldn't know the answer to those questions.

 

[blindsage]

Thanks for clarifying Sukerkin.

However, willful refusal to 'contribute' to the society of which you are a part is a valid grounds for denial of a 'voice' in determining how that society is organised and run. If you are not contributing because that is your choice, then it is only fair that there is a price for such selfishness.

But how do you define 'contribute'? And are those that 'contribute' but use their 'contribution' to corrupt the system exempt from this denial of a 'voice' because they 'contribute'?