Third Party & Independents Archives

America at it's 'best'.....NOT

Opportunity.
An election that comes along every 52 years.
OPPORTUNITY BLOWN!!!

We had our chance. We failed.
Why did we fail?

CNN - 'The Most Trusted Name in News' has this:
'Welcome to the CNN Political Market, where you get a chance to predict the future of 2008 presidential politics!'

'Login or sign up to trade...
Begin with $5,000 in CNN virtual dollars
Start trading in a variety of election markets'

I have said for a LONG time that our elections are nothing but a game.
That the media chooses our candidates.
This proves it!!

We have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT when it comes to ANY other nation, to disapprove of their 'democratic process' when our own elections are NOTHING but a game.

People complain about how the 'factions' in Iraq won't 'come together' to solve political issues.

Personally I have NO problem with them not coming together BECAUSE we can't do it ourselves.
WE are NOT a good example AND WE cannot expect them to do better than us!!!

Posted by Dawn at January 26, 2008 11:41 PM
Comments
Comment #243954

SOOOOO much more I wanted to say …

Posted by: Dawn at January 27, 2008 12:14 AM
Comment #243958

Dawn

The basis for our democracy is the consent of the governed. It is natural in any group greater than one person to have disagreements. People are always grumbling about their lives, jobs, spouses, the weather etc. People grumble more loudly in democracies because (1) they can (2) they think it can help change things and (3) they get frustrated that most people do not agree with them.

We are getting too spun up about the details of the process and asking too much of the government. What we have as free citizens is opportunity. We may pursue happiness, but most of us will not find it in any lasting sense. The government cannot change that and if we ask it to we will be giving up freedom.

Elections are practical events. They are supposed to measure the will of the people, but they are not themselves the will of the people. The will of the people is a protean concept and we can never define it. We can only design systems that can give us the outline. The long run will of the people is often incompatible with the short run will of the people. That is why we have correctly rejected the direct democracy in the original Athenian species. Our system sets up moderating institutions between the will of the people and the execution of their will. These are easy targets for popular discontent, but they are the supports that keep us from falling into a very deep chasm of anarchy on the one side and tyranny on the other.

Government is always inefficient. That is a good thing when we are talking about preserving liberty. Our founding fathers created an inefficient system on purpose. Checks and balances are inefficient. Our society is much more than the government.

Posted by: jack at January 27, 2008 1:22 AM
Comment #243965

Uh………………just change the channel.

I continue to boycott ABC (with the exception of George Stephanopoulos) since their “Path to 9/11” hit job.

Just change the channel. CNN is just about as reliable as FOX.

I certainly don’t rely on TV news.

It’s just entertainment.

Posted by: KansasDem at January 27, 2008 2:34 AM
Comment #243971

I’ve got to concur with Kansas Dem, TV news is all about entertainment, and sensationalism. If you only recieve news from one source you simply aren’t informed. You need to take everything with large grains of salt and understand the contraints of time and money and the 24 hour news cycle.

Posted by: googlumpugus at January 27, 2008 4:29 AM
Comment #243975

Anyone who still thinks that network news operations are really about news needs a stiff dose of reality. From the beginning of mass communication, the idea of straight news has been, at best, a hit or miss situation. Practically every news source ever devised has had some built in bias. Such sources are supportive of the government, or business, or some other entity, and slant their news accordingly.

In today’s society, for the most part, it is still the same. As a long time news watcher, and former journalist, both print and electronic, I can say that I have yet to see or read a “fair and balanced” news source. They are all biased.
We have choices to make. To watch or read only those sources that support our view or to broaden our horizons by watching and reading a variety of sources and opening ourselves up to difering views. I believe that we must do the latter if we are going to become effective voters and citizens. Of course, this has been a pipedream since the late 1700’s.

Posted by: Old Grouch at January 27, 2008 7:09 AM
Comment #243989

TV news provides only “news” that is photogenic…liberty, freedom, fiscal responsibility are not photogenic…

I can remember the 10pm news when I was a kid…within 15 minutes you got local, national, and international news…you even got weather and obituaries…and front page news did not demand a photo, just a pertinent topic…as in “real news”!

Posted by: Rachel at January 27, 2008 1:34 PM
Comment #243994

Jack said: “The basis for our democracy is the consent of the governed.”

That was the intended basis of our democracy. The actual basis of our democracy is no democracy at all, but, a theatrical presentation rehearsed, polished, with lines memorized, and media cameras scripted and positioned to maximize media’s access to the candidate after they win, which is and was the media’s bread and butter, before the advent of the new media internet.

And all this theater is designed to accomplish what all theater must accomplish, get the audience to suspend their disbelief so they can buy into the fiction and artificial environment of the theater itself.

The public doesn’t decide presidents, mega-delegates and the electoral college, and the party machines decide the president. The public is invited to participate only to give the process an air of democracy when it is anything but.

Congress persons are elected more or less by the people, but, not for the content of their philosophy or policy, but, instead on their acting ability on the campaign trail in conjunction with the packaging of the candidate by public relations, and marketing/advertising firms, selling yet another ‘reduce my taxes diet pill’ that doesn’t work.

If this were a functional democracy, when the polls show 90% of the public are dissatisfied with Congress, about 90% of Congress persons would be voted out of office in the next election. What we have is the exact opposite. When 90% of the public is dissatisfied with Congress, more than 90% of the incumbents are reelected.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 27, 2008 2:19 PM
Comment #243999

‘When 90% of the public is dissatisfied with Congress, more than 90% of the incumbents are reelected.’ by David

Incumbents are re-elected because of seniority. They play the ‘seniority card’ and convince the voters that a new person would not be effective.

Voters are easily convinced of this because IT’S TRUE - How many new politicians run with good ideas and good intentions only to find out they will never get anything accomplished if they don’t ‘play the game’??
They get sucked in and vote for things that they really wouldn’t have voted for, and the other way around, vote against things they wanted. All in hopes that they can do things they went there for in the first place.

The only way to fix the problem is to throw them ALL out at the same time and set term limits. We don’t even get to decide that - they do.

Posted by: Dawn at January 27, 2008 2:48 PM
Comment #244003
Personally I have NO problem with them not coming together BECAUSE we can’t do it ourselves. WE are NOT a good example AND WE cannot expect them to do better than us!!!
Good point.
  • 90% of all elections are won by the candidate that spends the most money.
  • 99.85% of all 200 million voters are VASTLY out-spent by a very tiny 0.15% of all voters that make 83% of all federal campaign donations (of $200 or more)
  • Since year 1980, the voters have repeatedly rewarded the incumbent politicians in the two-party duopoly with 96.5% (on average) seat-retention rates.
  • Incumbent politicians have many unfair advantages.
  • 40% to 50% of all 200 million eligible voters don’t bother to vote.
  • Most voters don’t even know who their state and federal senators and representatives are, much less their voting records (OnTheIssues.org).
  • Most voters pull the party lever; many not even knowing who they are voting for
  • 20% of students in American public schools can’t identify the United States on a world map.
  • Most voters think THEIR politician is grand. Most voters believe MOST politicians are crooked, but they think that THEIR politician is great, such as the voters that re-elected Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA). And it wouldn’t be surprising if the voters of Idaho re-elect Larry Craig … giving new meaning the word Idaho .
  • Most voters whine and complain and give Congress a low approval rating, most voters think the nation is on the wrong track (www.pollingreport.com/right.htm), but most voters repeatedly re-elect and reward the same incumbents, giving them cu$hy 93% to 99% re-election rates.
  • too many voters are one-issue voters, making them easy to manipulate; most voters are easily bribed with their own tax dollars; especially the older voters lobbying for entitlements; too many voters have fallen for the myth that we can all live at the expense of everyone else.
  • Most voters don’t know what the National Debt is, much less the total federal debt, Social Security debt, or the nation-wide personal debt.
  • Most voters fall for the blame-game and partisan warfare, because it is easier to blame the OTHER party than work to solve problems; foolishly emphasizing minor differences rather than working on unity to solve the many things most of us all already agree upon (the problem and the solution).
  • Most voters (if not all) can not name 10, 20, 50, 100, or 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are responsible and accountable. But then, perhaps that’s because there aren’t any? So, why repeatedly reward them with re-election?
  • Most voters blame Congress and the President, but fail to understand that the voters (the largest group of 200 million eligible voters) have the government that they repeatedly re-elect and reward. The voters are the one largest group responsible for their own problems. But, again, it’s easier to blame politicians, rather than take responsibility themselves.

Whoever becomes the next president, they will be ineffective if saddled with the same incompetent, bought-and-paid-for clowns in Congress, who enjoy 93-to-99% re-election rates.
Congress doesn’t care about the voters.
Most in Congress only care about their own cu$hy, coveted incumbencies, giving themselves another raise (like the last 9 raises between 1997 and 2007), cu$hy benefits, cu$hy pensions, superior healthcare, and any other perk$ they can dream up. And the Congress persons are all very well aware that the two-party duopoly in Congress has enjoyed a cu$hy 96.5% seat-retention rate since year 1980.

Voters will get their education one way or another, and the voters will have the government that they deserve.

Perhaps enough voters will become much less complacent and apathetic when they are jobless, homeless, and hungry?

Posted by: d.a.n at January 27, 2008 3:58 PM
Comment #244007

DR et al
The reason congressmen keep getting elected dispite disaproval of the institution is pretty simple. People voters usually like their own representitives and the job they are doing so they re-elect them.Its everybody eleses reps they do not like. Its always been like that. Much of the current disaproval of congress is because we are still in that stupid war with no end in sight and many people had pinned their hopes on congress to resolve it.

Jack
A real improvment we should undertake is getting rid of the electoral college system and going to a direct popular vote for president. The president is the only nationally elected office expected to represent ALL of the people.Most often the popular vote winner becomes president but not always. Why on earth shouldn’t the highest vote getter win the election?The current system is archaic and undemocratic by definition.Direct election would still leave judicial and legislative checks and balances in place and increase the level of trust among citizens.

Posted by: BillS at January 27, 2008 5:20 PM
Comment #244010

Dawn said: “The only way to fix the problem is to throw them ALL out at the same time and set term limits. We don’t even get to decide that - they do.”

Which is one amongst several reasons why term limits is an absurd or bad idea. Voting incumbents out is within the voter’s power to accomplish. But they have to promote it amongst themselves, because the media is only going to promote those who make them money, i.e. the incumbents.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 27, 2008 5:54 PM
Comment #244015

Nelson Lee Walker would strongly disagree.

I’m not opposed to term-limits.
I’m just not convinced it will help much.
Especially when the incumbent politicians that would have to enact such a law are the very people making the laws.

The real solution is for voters to not rely on this or that (e.g. term-limits).
Instead, simply do the one simple, common-sense, peaceful, no-brainer, responsible thing we voters were supposed to be doing all along:

  • Stop Repeat Offenders.

  • Stop Repeatedly Rewarding them with 93%-to-99% re-election rates.
Either way, the voters will get their education, and the voters will have the government that they deserve.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 27, 2008 6:53 PM
Comment #244054

The electoral college was formed so every state would have a voice in the election. They wouldn’t have joined if New York always determined the President. Lower populated states need a say.
The will of the “people” is a vague term that socialists use to justify anything including atrocities.
We have the interest of an enduring nation to consider. The interests of the state. And interests of individuals (rights etc). A canned “will of the people” is a poor determination for policy to preserve all three.

Posted by: Kruser at January 28, 2008 9:48 AM
Comment #244061

Kruser

i’ve said the same thing many times, but it never seems to make much of an impact. i’ve even suggested that each state get one vote regardless of population, that way each state would get equal say in the direction the country. the left always poo poos that idea though, believing that the few most populace states should dictate to the rest of the country. if new york and california were consistantly voting right, my guess is they’d be arguing my point. IMO each state should have equal input, since they are bound by the same federal laws as the any other state.

Posted by: dbs at January 28, 2008 10:49 AM
Comment #244066

Does anyone else see a problem with a party telling a state that their delegates don’t count?

Posted by: Dawn at January 28, 2008 12:15 PM
Comment #244069

Dawn,
Your original post makes no sense to me. How does that game prove the election is a joke? What does the 52 years refer to?

The Watchblog community (via the responses) seems to have given you a free pass instead of pouncing. Is it because you’re a female?

Posted by: Schwamp at January 28, 2008 12:36 PM
Comment #244070

“The electoral college was formed so every state would have a voice in the election…Lower populated states need a say.”

This is the exact problem with the college, the # of delegates is directly linked to population. Ask Deleware with it’s 3 votes compared to Florida with 27. Relatively Del. has no say. The system is broke. It is not the states that ‘need a say’ rather the umbrella of US citizens that need that voice. I argue that the citizens of Deleware would have the greatest voice with a popular vote as they would not be disenfranchised

I was always under the assumption that the college was created to prevent ignorant hill-billies from actually making a bad decision, back in the days before mass communication. Now that the telegraph, telephone, postal service, radio, t.v., and internet have been created there is no need for this obsolete system.


——

“Government is always inefficient.”

I think inefficient is better than selfish tyranny.

Posted by: angrymob at January 28, 2008 12:37 PM
Comment #244073

The electoral college is flawed, and that flaw becomes apparent in close elections.

Under ideal (but unlikely) conditions, the flaw could become very obvious.

Often, these over-complications are (by design) perversions to pave the way for abuses.

But the electoral college problem is low on the list of major problems facing the nation … nurtured by the apathetic, complacent, delusional, and/or blind loyalism of the electorate (despite the whining and complaining about corrupt politicians) that repeatedly rewards the incumbent politicians in the two-party duopoly with a 96.5% seat-retention rate (on average, since year 1980).

Posted by: d.a.n at January 28, 2008 1:03 PM
Comment #244074

Schwamp,

My candidates were out before the race even really got going.
I listened to them. I checked out their websites.
I tried to listen to ALL of them - both sides.
I read their websites - the ones I was more interested in that is.

By the time we get to vote in our state both sides will probably be down to 2 candidates.
How fair is that?

Turn the channel - I do.
Find and read information for your self - I do.

How many voters do you think really do their homework on the candidates?
How many do you think just go with the ‘winner’.
Noone wants to vote for the loser. I imagine there are alot of people who check the latest poll before they vote and vote for whoever is in the lead.
That, in part, is where it’s a ‘game’.
The media did not give all candidates the same chance to be heard.
From the beginning polls were being done without including all the names, debates were geared towards certain candidates ….

It is also a game when the parties play voters against each other to get them to vote for the winning team.

Some states are winner takes all for their delegates and others are based on percentage.
Why is their no standard? It is a federal election.
Some states let people cross party lines to vote in the primaries. Is that right? or fair?
When a party tells their delegates that their vote won’t count and the state lets them vote in the other parties primary - is the result really what it should have been?

Like I said, we have NO business complaining about other ‘democracies’ when ours has so many flaws.

Posted by: Dawn at January 28, 2008 1:14 PM
Comment #244081

d.a.n, Nelson Walker does not know how to put the horse in front of the cart. Politicians will not vote themselves term limits, UNTIL voters vote out incumbents making term limits the reason.

There is a logic there which is inescapable.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 28, 2008 3:25 PM
Comment #244082

BillS said: “The reason congressmen keep getting elected dispite disaproval of the institution is pretty simple. People usually like their own representitives and the job they are doing so they re-elect them.”

That is a correlation, not an explanation. WHY, if they disapprove of Congress, do they except their own representative. Psychologists have one explanation. Cognitive Dissonance, which says, one will not criticize one’s own choice as that would be criticial of one’s own action. Less dissonance if one criticizes the choice of others. In other words, American voters refuse to take responsibility for their voting choice and its consequences.

That is one explanation. There are others, abject ignorance of what their representatives do, is another. These two ring truest of all explanations. Until voters render to the admonition, to thine own self be true, they will continue to dump responsibility for government on anyone else but themselves. But, do you see how diminishing of this is of voters, this dumping of responsibility is?

Most of us know its true, even if we won’t admit it in public. We are a horribly ignorant lot of voters, irresponsible, and self conscious about our choices to boot. We like the broken system as is because it so easily gives us the ability to fix blame and responsibility elsewhere. Politicians are happy to serve this broke system.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 28, 2008 3:36 PM
Comment #244087

david

“That is a correlation, not an explanation. WHY, if they disapprove of Congress, do they except their own representative.”

why would you say someone can disapprove of congress as a whole, but not be happy with thier own rep at the same time ? maybe polls should ask both questions. i don’t find anything wrong with bills explanation, because it describes how i feel pretty accurately.

Posted by: dbs at January 28, 2008 4:21 PM
Comment #244090
d.a.n, Nelson Walker does not know how to put the horse in front of the cart. Politicians will not vote themselves term limits, UNTIL voters vote out incumbents making term limits the reason.

There is a logic there which is inescapable.


Well, true. But I don’t want to be too hard on Nelson Lee Walker, because Nelson Lee Walker also supports VOID and FOAVC, and he started his site long before VOID and FOAVC, and he now supports all three.

Therefore, I think even Nelson Lee Walker now understands that Congress is not likely to voluntarily pass a BILL for term-limits. But it is still a goal he hopes for. That’s OK.

Article V has a similar problem, but not quite as hopeless, because another law suit (which may happen soon with the legal help we are getting) will force the Supreme Court to deal with it. Also, you may find this interesting (it’s a new F.A.Q.).

The real solution is VOID.
However, all of these things (VOID, FOAVC, TenureCorrupts, etc.) bring pressue to bear on Do-Nothing Congress. All of these things help by enlightening more and more voters.

However, in my opinion, the most simple, common-sense, peaceful, and responsible thing ALL voters can do (as Dawn suggests), and VOID suggests, is quite simply:

  • Stop repeatedly rewarding bad politicians with perpetual re-election.

Of course, I have no delusions about how difficult that will be to hasten the voters to do sooner what they will probably do later, anyway. That is, enough voters will probably finally be less apathetic, complacent, and blindly loyal when they are jobless, homeless, and hungry.

It’s too bad we have to do it the hard way. Sooner would be much smarter and less painful than later, and there is some pain already in the pipeline.

*Sigh*

Either way, we’ll have the government that we deserve (as long our right to vote still has not yet been eliminated or marginalized).

Posted by: d.a.n at January 28, 2008 4:44 PM
Comment #244092

Have you noticed how often Lou Dobbs and Jack Cafferty on CNN say “vote the bums out” or “vote indepedent”? I don’t think too much of any Main Stream Media stations (on the whole), but you won’t hear them saying that much (if ever) on FOX News.

Republicans since 2000 betrayed their principles and expanded government. This does not make me happy. But Dems want to expand it even more. I cannot trust the likes of Pelosi and that guy Reid with our national security. So I remain in on the Republican side.
If only enough voters would take Dawn’s advice:
The only way to fix the problem is to throw them ALL out at the same time …

Unfortunately, too many voters have misplaced loyalties and continue to reward the incumbent politicians in the two-party duopoly with 93% to 99% re-election rates (since year 1980).

And disdain for the OTHER party, and the fear that the OTHER party will win a few extra seats in Do-nothing Congress is so great, that voters feel compelled to pull the party-lever.

And the incumbent politicians are well aware of these very high 93% to 99% re-election rates. And fueling the partisan warfare ensures they will continue to enjoy their cu$hy, coveted incumbencies indefinitely.

It appears it will take some more pain and misery?

Posted by: d.a.n at January 28, 2008 4:58 PM
Comment #244150

d.a.n, wasn’t trying to be hard on Nelson, just his logic.

You have converted me to believing that it will require enormous social and economic pain for Americans to exert their power to throw the status quo incumbents out of office, in a huge heave. Not sure that will solve anything though, until they realize that throwing incumbents out routinely when government disappoints is where responsible government can be found.

Voters too have the cart before the horse. Responsible voters make for responsible government. Not the other way around.

Yes, I watch Dobbs and Cafferty routinely. Their views now reflect those of about 25% of the electorate, and growing. I am encouraged by their giving national voice to our VOID message, on a fairly regular basis. Rather, that their call-in viewers give voice to it.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 29, 2008 12:48 PM
Comment #244230

Our federal government at its best:

“”at least 17,000 bridges in the U.S. went more than two years between safety inspections, according to federal records analyzed by msnbc.com. These newly released records from the National Bridge Inventory include inspections through 2006. Although Congress in 1971 ordered rigorous standards for inspecting bridges every 24 months, the records reveal a system in which the buck is passed down from federal to state to local governments, without penalty for those that fail to protect the public. “”

The FDA isn’t far behind…

Posted by: Rachel at January 30, 2008 8:03 AM
Comment #244362
The FDA isn’t far behind…
Is that the Federal Death Advocacy administration? Must be, with 195,000 deaths per year due to preventable medical mistakes. Another Tombstone agency. They’re FOR-SALE, like many other offices, agencies, departments, commissions, blah, blah, blah in a severely bloated, incompetent do-nothing federal government. The abuses abound, but the majority of voters repeatedly reward do-nothing Congress for all of it with 96.5% re-election rates.
  • Posted by: d.a.n at January 31, 2008 7:16 PM
    Comment #244363
    The FDA isn’t far behind…
    Is that the Federal Death Advocacy administration? Must be, with 195,000 deaths per year due to preventable medical mistakes. Another Tombstone agency. They’re FOR-SALE, like many other offices, agencies, departments, commissions, blah, blah, blah in a severely bloated, incompetent do-nothing federal government. The abuses abound, but the majority of voters repeatedly reward do-nothing Congress for all of it with 96.5% re-election rates.
  • Posted by: d.a.n at January 31, 2008 7:17 PM
    Comment #244409

    d.a.n said: “Must be, with 195,000 deaths per year due to preventable medical mistakes.”

    And Republicans want to prevent those patients and surviving families from sueing over those 195,000 medical malpractice events per year in America. No wonder Americans are going to India for surgery. I hear they don’t mistake which limb or organ to operate on or remove, over there. They are not in as big a hurry to turn maximum patients for maximum profits through their operating rooms. They don’t have near the number of hungover Monday practitioners as we have either, I hear.

    Posted by: David R. Remer at February 1, 2008 6:22 AM
    Comment #244433
    d.a.n wrote: Must be, with 195,000 deaths per year due to preventable medical mistakes.
    David R. Remer wrote: And Republicans want to prevent those patients and surviving families from sueing over those 195,000 medical malpractice events per year in America. No wonder Americans are going to India for surgery. I hear they don’t mistake which limb or organ to operate on or remove, over there. They are not in as big a hurry to turn maximum patients for maximum profits through their operating rooms. They don’t have near the number of hungover Monday practitioners as we have either, I hear.

    I don’t agree with caps on malpractice awards.
    What I find despicable is the personal injury lawyers winning millions of dollars by capitalizing on someone else’s pain and misery; another manifestation of unchecked greed.

    I’ve already had three close calls that could have been deadly:

    • (1) a nurse tried to give me someone else’s medication (4 strange looking pills), but the doctor had already warned me to not take anything by mouth, so (luckily) I refused the medication.

    • (2) a nurse did not flush a jugular intravenous line every 48 hours, which caused a blood clot that fortuantely stopped in the jugular vein before reaching the lungs.

    • (3) a nurse pinched a central intravenous line to the jugular (in the front door of an automatic IV machine) and it was drawing air through the pinched hole, which I noticed in time, before a one foot gap of air reached me (which could have caused a heart attack or embolism).

    What is causing this?

    • What is causing the many pressures on the healthcare system? Hundreds of hospitals are closing due to being overrun by illegal aliens (84 in California alone).

    • What causes the pressures to immigrate 1 Million immigrants annually, and 4 million more illegal aliens, and hundreds of thousands of H-1B and H-2B Visa workers?

    • What causes the government to ignore the immigration laws and open borders, despite the numerous burdens being shifted to middle-income Americans due to burdens on education systems, healthcare, hospitals, ERs, welfare, Medicaid, MediCAL, (32% of illegal aliens receive welfare), Social Security, border patrol, law enforcement, prison systems (29% of all incarcerated are illegal aliens), insurance, millions of jobs displaced, voter fraud, disease, crime, and thousands of people murdered annually by illegal aliens),?

    • What causes the demand for more and more and more cheap labor (legal or not)?

    • What causes the federal and state governments to ignore illegal immigration laws?

    • What causes the erosion of the U.S. Dollar?

    • What causes the regressive taxation?

    • What causes the disappearing 40 hour work week?

    • What causes the erosion and burdens on the public school systems?

    • What causes the economic bubbles, economic instability, ?

    • What causes the falling median household incomes for the past 30 years?

    • What causes the growing debt, borrowing, spending, and excessive money printing?

    • What causes the plundering of the Social Security surpluses ($12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent)?

    • What causes the rampant pork-barrel, graft, corporate welfare, subsidies, and waste?

    • What causes the need for a $150 stimulus package in ths supposedly richest nation in the world, and instructions from the president and economists to spend it instead of paying down debt?
    • What causes the nefarious methods to squeezing more and more productivity out of working Americans?

    • What causes the rampant greed of CEOs with multi-million dollar salaries, stock options, bonuses, and golden parachutes to cheating millions of investors out of $billions (e.g. Ken Lay (ENRON), Bernard Ebbers (WorldCOM), David Myers (WorldCOM), Dennis Kozlowski (Tyco), Mark H. Swartz (Tyco), John Rigas (Aldelphia), Timothy Rigas (Aldelphia), Scott Sullivan (WorldCOM), Burford Yates (WolrdCOM), Jeff Skilling (ENRON), Andrew Fastow (ENRON), Lea Fastow (ENRON), Samuel D. Waksal (ImClone Systems), David Duncan (Arthur Andersen), E. Kirk Shelton (Cendant), Ben Glisan Jr. (ENRON), Dan Boyle (ENRON), Weston Smith (HealthSouth), Aaron Beam (HealthSouth)),

    • What causes the wealthiest 1% with 20% of all wealth to now be 40% of all weatlh?
    • What causes the PBGC pensions $450 Billion in the hole?
    What is causing all of this?

    Obviously, there is something very big at stake here?
    Obviously, there is something fundamentally wrong.
    Obviously, all of the above did not come about by mere accident.
    Obviously, the plutocracy knows how to control us, keep us distracted, brainwashed, and dependent on a government that takes more than it gives back.

    Yet, most voters know it, but choose to repeatedly reward corrupt, incompetnent, irresponsible incumbent politicians in Congress for all of it with 93%-to-99% re-election rates.

    At any rate, voters will have the government that they deserve.

    Posted by: d.a.n at February 1, 2008 3:57 PM
    Post a comment