America should change sides and support Palestine.

[MHunterB]

I don't know about you, but to me 'compulsory' means you get punished (fined, go to jail) if you don't participate. That doesn't seem to be the case.

And I fail to see what the availability or funding of abotion has to do with the topic of economic paradigms.

The 'ethnocentrism' is still not 'established' by the sources cited, as they tend to be biased - albeit in a different direction.

 

[georgephillip]

georgephillip, et al,

Many would argue that this is already a description of the US; whether you look at it domestically (the influence and treatment of the upper 1% of Americans, or the connection is has with the global affluent population).

Do you believe American government should side with the richest 1% or the majority of humanity?

(COMMENT)

Technically the US is geared to accomodate those that have access to the the Power Broker; which is the upper 1% of the affluent in America. And (as a general rule) the affluent do not mingle with the members of the poor, the struggling, or those of a lower social status unless there is some higher agenda to be served.

The majority of humanity - are people still in the lower rungs of Maslow's Ladder. There day to day issues have virtually nothing in common with the affluent class (less issues of the heart, love and family). The affluent don't buy a car based on its utility to the family, it milage, and the cost of insurance and maintenance. These are not their concerns. They don't worry about their next paycheck and their credit rating.

In the global arena, regional security is often influenced by the control exerted by the rich, powerful, and influential; which is especially true of the Middle East. US Foreign Policy is often set to exploit these conditions. Thus the interventionist style of diplomacy. Unfortunately, the US connection to the Middle Eastern world (but not exclusively to that region), built on exploitation, does not foster a mutual friendship between the non-influential class of people organic to the region. It is a decision made by the influential of the US to gain and maintain more influence; and not based on providing support to the regional lower/middle class. And because it generally disregards the impact on the regional lower/middle class, there grows an association (as perceived by the view from the bottom) between the US and the various dictatorships, princes and potentates that are prominent throughout the land.

So, it becomes a matter of US Foreign Policy (mostly a mystery to the average American) crafted by the rich, powerful and influential, as to how the US will interact and respond.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco:

At the end of WWII, some elite planners in the US State Department pondered how much time the average American spent thinking about foreign policy issues. As I understand the story, their conclusion was about ten minutes a day; today, those ten minutes are probably diminished by multi-tasking.

I don't see how the 99% of Americans being victimized by today's plutocracy change anything by "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican in the voting booth since both major parties depend on the 1% to fund their campaigns.

Possibly, when the next economic crisis CRASHES the US Economy loudly enough to focus our attention the same way 911 did, enough of us will see the revolutionary force that Capitalism becomes after it emasculates government.

Do you have any thoughts on which side of that class conflict elites in the US military will side with?

 

[MHunterB]

George, would yu like to explain a few things?

1) what are you imagining as 'the next economic crisis' ?

2)revolutionary force?

3) 'class conflict'

The US military *knows* it is never supposed to take political sides. All the veterans of that military know so as well. I very much doubt there would be any 'unified' response from our military to any poitical or economic situation.

And none of that has anything whatsoever to do with 'supporting Israel' so far as you've posted.

 

[georgephillip]

George, would yu like to explain a few things?

1) what are you imagining as 'the next economic crisis' ?

2)revolutionary force?

3) 'class conflict'

The US military *knows* it is never supposed to take political sides. All the veterans of that military know so as well. I very much doubt there would be any 'unified' response from our military to any poitical or economic situation.

And none of that has anything whatsoever to do with 'supporting Israel' so far as you've posted.

Marge...possibly a 90% "correction" in the US stock market?

"Despite the 6.5% stock market rally over the last three months, a handful of billionaires are quietly dumping their American stocks . . . and fast.

"Warren Buffett, who has been a cheerleader for U.S. stocks for quite some time, is dumping shares at an alarming rate. He recently complained of 'disappointing performance' in dyed-in-the-wool American companies like Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, and Kraft Foods.

"In the latest filing for Buffett’s holding company Berkshire Hathaway, Buffett has been drastically reducing his exposure to stocks that depend on consumer purchasing habits. Berkshire sold roughly 19 million shares of Johnson & Johnson, and reduced his overall stake in 'consumer product stocks' by 21%. Berkshire Hathaway also sold its entire stake in California-based computer parts supplier Intel.

"With 70% of the U.S. economy dependent on consumer spending, Buffett’s apparent lack of faith in these companies’ future prospects is worrisome."

Billionaires Dumping Stocks, Economist Knows Why

For generations, US investors needed a potent US middle class to provide the goods and services and drive 79% of US GDP with their purchases. Since US investors now have a much larger middle class rising in Brazil, India, and China, I look for continuing stagnation and decline for 90% of Americans.

Pentagon elites are among the richest 10% of Americans with some among the richest 1%.
I don't think they are likely to value "democracy" more than their lifestyle.

Supporting Israel has always had more to do with subsidizing US arms sales to the Jewish State with US tax dollars. If Wiedemer is correct (again) about the coming "correction", the Pentagon isn't going to be able to borrow enough money to subsidize the Jewish State or wage war on the opposite side of the globe, and yet the US economy will still be addicted to war and fraud.

What do you think will happen?