Third Party & Independents Archives

The Future For The Great Recession

If Obama becomes a one-term President that will be a good sign that the voting public is wiser than voters in the days of FDR. During the depression era the people were so afraid to vote for change that FDR was able to hang in for near four terms in office. Now, we are looking at a ‘double dip’ and a ‘jobless recovery’ and people want this administration gone. And, by the time 2012 elections roll around I believe they will want Obama ‘gone’ moreso than they wanted Bush ‘gone’.

You have to wonder what the Republican’s will do to improve their lot should they return to power in 12. Can they take back the White House on the mantra of low taxes and limited government? If they do and inherit this ‘failed’ government - - OK OK let’s stop right here and determine what a failed gov’t is. If the majority of the American people don’t want democrats or republicans returned to power then what do you call it? The duopoly IS the government I do believe. Add in some minor reinforcements such as debt, failing economy, legislation to no where, more illegals than you can shake a stick at, and drug wars busting out all over I don’t believe I could find anyone who would argue otherwise.

FDR was able to shake the depression with the advent of WWII. It might be a long shot but the Repub’s could declare war on the drug cartels. If fought like the Iraq/Afghan wars it could last longer than WWII giving political cover for a good number of years. They could drag it beyond Mexico to Venezuela, Columbia and points South, even to Africa.

Seems plausible that war could be brought to the drug cartels in the same venue that we took on the Taliban and Al-Queda. Doesn’t have to be against the foreign govt’s. War against terror should fit the drug cartels nicely.

I believe 72 potential immigrants were recently captured by the cartels and when they objected they were murdered on the spot. Also, a number of people along the border were found thrown into a well, some said to be thrown in alive. Still others, found dead in trash disposal areas. Some 28,228 have been killed along the border since Calderon took office, more than US fatalities in the Iraq war..

Today two car bombs went off in N. Mex. and the US Consulate in Monterrey is sending children of Consulate employees back to the US. Fourteen drug related killings reported in Acapulco. Grenades were also thrown at Televisa in Monterrey and Matamoros across from Brownsville, Texas, earlier this month. The media has all but shut down across much of the Northern border leaving the cartels to pillage and plunder at will.

Can you imagine some dude puffing on a joint while postulating the cartel thing? I don’t think the Barbary Pirates acted this badly. Noriega was a cream puff compared to these modern day druggies.

I read recently where the FED is ferreting out about 1% of money associated with drugs. There is some talk that any purchases in Mexico over $10k or so to be done other than cash.

I could see the Republicans setting up a number of ‘Arpaio’ type tent city jails and take the war to the cartels. I see nothing to gain re recovery from the great recession unless some protectionist's measures are taken. Can’t see that happening under the Repub’s. But, they very well could score some points with the voting public by taking on the cartel’s as terrorist organizations.

Posted by Roy Ellis at August 27, 2010 9:23 PM
Comments
Comment #306984

David,

“But, they very well could score some points with the voting public by taking on the cartel’s as terrorist organizations.”

Maybe Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, et all will loan them the money to do so.

Where else is the money going to come from… China?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 27, 2010 10:53 PM
Comment #306993

Rocky, “David?”

Did you mean, Roy? I haven’t chimed in on this one yet.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 28, 2010 2:09 AM
Comment #306995

Roy, first mistake in this article is laying an economic recovery at ANY president’s feet. President’s DO NOT have the authority to craft and pass budgets. And economic health does not begin and end with the actions of government. Economic health begins and ends with the actions of the private sector.

There is a wholesale conspiracy on the part of a great many corporations sitting on cash and refusing to hire for one reason alone, to bring down Obama and Democrats. Reason? The greed of hoping that such action will prevent the Bush tax cuts from expiring. Unenlightened self-interest, pure and simple.

The private sector could cut unemployment by as much as 2% in 6 to 12 months if they had the desire to. They don’t and won’t.

Your article presumes that a president can snap their fingers and bring the worst recession since the Great Depression back to its bubble levels of 2007 in a year and a half. Sorry, Roy, it just doesn’t work that way.

Recessions are by definition, slow to recover, and myriad variables contribute to the slow rate of recovery, most of which are beyond the control of the President, or even the Congress, for that matter. Corporate banks are hamstringing regional and local banks, which in turn, are hamstringing small businesses desire for capital. One of several reasons is the same as above.

There are fiscal and monetary sides to a recession, but, the private sector is not directly under the control of either, only influenced. The fact that this banking / mortgage bubble did NOT result in another Depression, is truly remarkable and due to government intervention. But, recovery from recession is a private sector driven event, and the banks are slowing that recovery, the public increased savings and subsequent lower consumption are slowing that recovery, and our crippled political system with its doom and gloom rhetoric for campaign and election purposes are slowing the recovery. There are many more factors as well, but, they get complicated and technical.

Roy said: “FDR was able to shake the depression with the advent of WWII.” Which is another way of saying FDR oversaw unequaled massive deficit spending in a very, very short time which accounted for the end of the Recession by putting everyone to work on the government’s dime. May I point out that Republicans and conservative Democrats would not allow such massive deficit stimulus spending in 2009 or this year, fighting it tooth and nail, despite the lesson of WWII and how it ended the 12 year Great Depression in just 12 months, through massive stimulative deficit spending in the creation of jobs, factory growth, and massive military buildup.

Obama proposed a similar direction but, instead of military buildup, he proposed massive investment in energy and transportation infrastructure buildup for a vibrant new economic future in America centered on energy independence and innovative export of those technologies. Again, Republicans and conservative Democrats fought it, watered it down, compromised it, to the level of FDR’s and Congress’s anemic efforts of the 1930’s, too little, too late.

It wasn’t FDR’s decision to go to war, that was the decision of the Japanese. It was Obama’s decision to stimulate jobs and economic recovery through massive energy and infrastructure investment, but, conservatives weren’t interested in saving the economy, they were interested in bringing down Obama. They cannot tolerate the first black Democratic American president overseeing an economic recovery from a trashed economy left by Republicans.

No, the Becks of this world, cannot tolerate that prospect. They will invoke religion, patriotism, racism, doom and gloom, lies of the highest order backed by millions of dollars to promulgate throughout the media culture, whatever it takes, to prevent the likes of Obama from coming out of this smelling like a success. Of course, that means they must destroy the recovery and halt America’s progress along the way. Guess they figure that is a small price to pay. Such people are the domestic enemies of America, and make no mistake about that. They will destroy this nation in order to win a political battle and rewrite the history to paint themselves the heroes. Such folks would make Goebbels and Goering proud of these students of Nazi political and propagandist tactics.

And, no. I refuse to allow their lessons to be buried only to be repeated on an unsuspecting public again. It is happening as I type.

And let me be clear, Democrats exercised some of the very same tactics earlier this decade, especially between 2007 and 2009. It is appalling the subterranean depths to which American politics have fallen. Our politicians are sabotaging our nation and the future of working Americans all in the name political warfare, no holds barred.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 28, 2010 2:56 AM
Comment #306998

Roy haven’t we already declared war on drugs?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9252490

Seems to me we have only escalated the problem by doing so as a half century after the start of this “war” we are still at it and the bad guys are more powerful than ever.

Are you suggesting that the USA invade Mexico, Columbia etc., and attack these kingpins as terrorist by violating the sovereignty of these nations?

Posted by: j2t2 at August 28, 2010 9:30 AM
Comment #306999

Wow.

Invading Mexico would truly bring the drug wars to the US. The Mexican people and the world will not stand by if the US repeats it’s adventures into Mexico as we did many years ago. The previous wars were not that popular, except in some regions of the South West. The Texas Rangers simply drove south killing Mexicans indiscriminately. Even the US forces were appalled at their actions. There will always be someone who cheers that, however. When people in the US start dying because of the stupidity of a party that chooses to ignore the reality of what happened with regards to prohibition, the consequences to that party will be enormous.

The cavalier attitude expressed about war, suggests someone more interested in a political agenda than anything to benefit Americans, and the misreading of history is enormous. David, is exactly right is saying this would be an exercise in the rise of something akin to Nazism.

David,

I agree with most of what you said, but why do you believe employers are conspiring to not hire? If you are running a business and sales are dropping off, you do not go on a hiring spree. You hire when there is a rise in demand, to service that demand. Our company is hiring right now. It was not hiring a few months ago. No conspiracy. Just normal business practice.

Posted by: gergle at August 28, 2010 9:33 AM
Comment #307001

j2t2, In wondering what the Repub’s might do re the great recesssion, they might be able to deflect the ‘jobless recovery’ et al for several years by waging war on the cartels. And yes, with real bullets. Would Mexico accede to a takeover by the cartels or would they willingly turn to the US for ‘guns and butter’? Some African nations might go along for the economic benefits.

David, talk about me being a conspiracy theorist!! While there might be some relevance to your suggestion that Repub’s are holding back on hiring/investing until they take power again, IMO most are just riding out the storm.

If you feel so strongly about the duopoly why you not want to support a 3rd party from any sector? After 30 years of digressing politics do you expect a big turnaround anytime soon? Wondering where is your tipping point?

Rocky, the war on the middle class is far from over, IMO. The current effort is to keep the pressure on the working class with the ‘jobless recovery’. We can be recovering, lowering wages, for the next 20 years, easily. Maintaining the recession at ‘just sustainable’ levels is the most efficient way to lower incomes across the board, IMO. Here is some of how that is being carried out.

http://www.epi.org/analysis_and_opinion/entry/filling_a_huge_jobs_hole/

One could assume that if the admin was looking to take the pressure off the working class they would round up the illegals and send them packing. Otherwise, one could assume their intent lies somewhere else. I assure you that if you will accept a pay cut down to $3-5/hr the world would, at once, become your friend and the recession would dissipate as so much smoke. But, as long as you choose to hold out that’s how long the recession will last.

In the interim the Repub’s will need some policy to pretend at leadership. I just think that, looking at the prospects, waging a real shoot-em up war with the cartels would be their best shot while waiting out you and the recession.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 28, 2010 10:39 AM
Comment #307009

“Did you mean, Roy? I haven’t chimed in on this one yet.”

Sorry David, I don’t know what came over me.

Roy,

Declaring “war” on anything now is unrealistic, unless your plan includes conscripting the millions of unemployed, putting them in uniform, arming them, and sending them to the war zone.

Are we truly even trying to win the war on terror or do we think we can win by attrition?
Are we going to be repaid even a fraction for the 100s of billions we spent on Iraq?

Somehow I don’t think so.

If America can’t take care of itself I’d say that everyone else is on their own until we can.

Rocky


Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 28, 2010 12:02 PM
Comment #307014

Rocky, you must realize that a lot of Americans are still holding out on globalization. Some have three cars, boat in the garage and make more than $4/hr. In this context, globalization hasn’t been achieved yet.

One wonders how the Afghan and Iraq wars have lasted far longer than WWII. Did it take that long to restore the oil fields and get oil flowing again? Did not the Al-Queda left the battle field years ago?

As those wars wind down and we wait out the capitulation of the working class to globalization I see where the Repub’s could hasten the works of the Corpocracy by engaging the cartels in some costly skirmishes. A two for one swap, if you will.

Watching Glenn Beck on the Mall today and he suggest that the current generation should pay the debts incurred through globalization now owed by the next couple of generations. That is a total impossibility, IMO. I hope he will enlighten us as to how we might do that.

The Repub’s can’t just sit it out and wait for the middle class to cave. They will have to take some action toward leadership and there is little money left to give away. I think China/Saudi will back up on them if they try to borrow more just to piss away. This, even as China is the great beneficiary of globalization.

In that context a real drug wars makes sense to me.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 28, 2010 1:48 PM
Comment #307018

Roy,

“In that context a real drug wars makes sense to me.”

Yeah, that’s great.
You’ve got a few hundred billion stashed away just in case to pay for it, right?

“Rocky, you must realize that a lot of Americans are still holding out on globalization. Some have three cars, boat in the garage and make more than $4/hr. In this context, globalization hasn’t been achieved yet.”

We Americans are way too proud of how much money we make. We buy way too many geegaws. Keeping up with the “Jones’” was a marketing ploy to separate our money from our wallets, and yet we bought into it hook, line, and sinker.

The march to globalization didn’t start with NAFTA. It started when the first American company thought there were vast untapped markets overseas for their goods. What they didn’t realize was that there were too few people in those markets that actually afford those goods.

Henry Ford had a good idea when he priced his product so that his employees could afford to buy one.

How many companies today can say that?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 28, 2010 2:33 PM
Comment #307042

gergle, asked a good question: “…but why do you believe employers are conspiring to not hire? If you are running a business and sales are dropping off, you do not go on a hiring spree.”

There are sectors and businesses which have seen demand and sales increase over the last 10 months, and prior to 10 months ago, they had cut labor costs to the bone at a rate of 750,000 workers per month at the beginning of 2009. Many have hired and are hiring, which accounts for that number of 750,000 per month dropping to 43,000 per month, or whatever the current figure is. But, there are sectors that are holding back, like the big commercial banks, and because of other big commercial banks actions like not making money available to regional banks, regional and local banks are unable to make loans to mid and small companies who want to hire but, can’t get the expansion capital to build up their work force to fill increased demand.

In May (PDF), the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress reported that it’s still nearly impossible for small businesses to get loans, despite improvements in the economy. The Big Banks are a key component of this constriction at the regional and local level. Which means the Big Banks are ELECTING to constrain job growth. Its a choice, not a necessity - their profitability couldn’t be better. It costs them little to constrain jobs and the economy in the hopes of forcing better regulatory conditions and Republican blockade of regulation on them after Nov.’s elections.

Here is another story on one company and its management’s reason for not hiring (greed), despite business demand increasing. For corporations this greed factor is paramount. It is their reason for existing. If they are in an industry subject to regulation, it is in their greed interest to impede job and economic recovery as a means of influencing November’s elections toward a less regulatory political climate (grid-locked Congress with Republicans and Democrats each with a majority in one of the branches of Congress.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 28, 2010 4:55 PM
Comment #307043


Gergle, every corporation and company does not have to participate in David’s conspiracy theory. A few powerful people can manipulate the situation to create uncertainty which causes others to be hesitant.

Ken Mehlman helped Carl Rove get anti-gay marriage initiatives on the ballot in several states in an effort to get the Christian Right out to the polls to save Bush in 2004. Most of those initiatives were in Republican states that would have voted for Bush anyway. But, one has been credited with getting Christian conservatives out in droves in a state that was crucial in the reelection of Bush, Ohio.

The American people are financing drug wars in North, South, Central America, and Afghanistan, both sides.

Posted by: jlw at August 28, 2010 5:04 PM
Comment #307044

Roy said: “David, talk about me being a conspiracy theorist!! While there might be some relevance to your suggestion that Repub’s are holding back on hiring/investing until they take power again, IMO most are just riding out the storm.”

To be sure, Roy, different enterprises have different reasons for not hiring despite demand having increased as you indicate. Automated technologies replacing human labor at lower long term costs, being one, uncertainty about future demand another. But, to be sure, political climate, regulation, and fostering a Republican win in the House forcing a grid-locked Congress incapable of new regulatory reform and more favorable treatment for corporate taxation, is a factor for some of the larger mid and big name corporations. (see my reply to gergle above).

Roy asked: “If you feel so strongly about the duopoly why you not want to support a 3rd party from any sector?”

Simple. I am president of a non-partisan PAC which, among other objectives, addresses the negative consequences of political parties on governance. It would be a conflict of interest for me to become a Party supporter, and hypocritical to boot. Parties exist to raise money and win elections - that is their first and foremost operational priority - which squeezes good governance out of the picture more times than not. The evidence of this is overwhelming, whether it is a third party or duopoly party.

I see more positives in the New American Independent Party personally and will vote for their candidates if they appear on my ballot as challengers. But, they are a political party nonetheless, and I have no reason to believe that if they ever became a governing party, that they would not put politics ahead of governance in a heartbeat in the absence of a strong and widespread anti-incumbent movement demanding good governance in exchange for their vote for incumbents.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 28, 2010 5:08 PM
Comment #307045

jlw, quite right. It only a takes a small oligopoly of big commercial banks to have widespread power over economic activity - in a real sense, giving them potential leverage over the outcomes of elections. The bottleneck of Big commercial banks lending to regional and local banking sectors is constricting small business access to loans to underwrite new hiring to fill increasing demand.

One has to be pretty naive to think that wealthy fat cat bankers at Goldman Sachs, Chase, and Bilk of America are not exerting their executive power to help insure a Republican majority in the House in January, which would grid-lock and halt any new regulatory impositions upon big commercial banks, and possibly, compromise and minimize Democrats intentions to lift the Bush tax cuts on the very wealthy, which these fat cat bankers are members of.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 28, 2010 5:15 PM
Comment #307061

DRR said:

“Roy, first mistake in this article is laying an economic recovery at ANY president’s feet. President’s DO NOT have the authority to craft and pass budgets.”

Does this mean you are taking back all those liberal attacks on Bush for the ecconomic mess we have on our hands?

I am glad to finally hear a liberal who does not believe everthing was Bush’s fault…so I guess we have to blame it on the congress???

Posted by: Bereattta9 at August 28, 2010 6:41 PM
Comment #307062

Mr. Remer in a number of posts above wrote…”despite business demand increasing…”

Just a few weeks ago he was arguing in his comments that there was weak business demand and thus no reason to afford tax incentives to business to build, research or hire. Have we gone from weak demand to increasing demand in just a week or two?

I smell “old fish”.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 28, 2010 7:06 PM
Comment #307065

RF, so what you are saying is, “he was for it, before he was against it”, or something like that???

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 28, 2010 7:28 PM
Comment #307070

Royal Flush and Baretta9 are again cherry picking out of context, ie lying, as the only way to engage in a debate.

RF, my previous writing regarding weak business demand was in the context of consumer demand overall. My reference to ‘despite business demand increasing’ in my latest comment refers to a specific group of corporations like the mega commercial banks, not business demand across the economy as a whole. If taking peoples words out of context in order misrepresent even the topic they refer to, is the only way you can debate, you lost it before it even began. Thanks, for another coup counting.

Baretta9, you didn’t have a clue what was being referenced, and still don’t. Thank you for the opportunity to point that out.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 28, 2010 7:42 PM
Comment #307071

Baretta9 wrote: “Does this mean you are taking back all those liberal attacks on Bush for the ecconomic mess we have on our hands?”

Quote them, and I will respond. Otherwise, I haven’t a clue what you are talking about. I never laid the economic mess solely at Bush’s feet. NEVER! Bush oversaw the economic mess and contributed to it with his Ownership Society agenda which gave carte blanche and irrationally low interest rates to the mortgage and banking sector with the cooperation of that other powerful Republican, Alan Greenspan. But, here’s a bit of information I am sure are unaware of. The ownership society concept was begun under Clinton.

My extensive writing on the economic mess indicts myriad contributors, of which Bush was but another contributor. Stimulating the economy today would be vastly more affordable had Bush not signed 5 trillion dollars of additional deficits into law during his two terms. He did have the Veto power, even if he threw Clinton’s veto pen out the window for fear of it having Lewinsky cooties on it.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 28, 2010 7:48 PM
Comment #307079

I know exactly what you mean David, I feel the same way about the 2 1/2 trillion Obama has spent in the last 18 months.

If memory serves me correct, your “extensive writing on the economic mess” gave Freddie and Fannie a free pass, but now even BF thinks it needs to be done away with…

Think, “anger management”

Posted by: Beretta9 at August 28, 2010 8:07 PM
Comment #307102


I think the question the American people should be asking is: why are the media giants producing so much derisive programing designed to divide the people?

Posted by: jlw at August 28, 2010 11:34 PM
Comment #307112

jlw, they think that is where the money is. Media went corporate right after they buried Edward R. Murrow and Walter Kronkite. They now serve the same master as political parties and other corporate entities.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 29, 2010 1:25 AM
Comment #307113

Baretta9, your memory does NOT serve you correct. Again, failure to do your research and homework. Freddie and Fannie management were arrogant and foolish to have started down the road they did with poorly backed paper collateral. But, they were not alone, by any means. Bottom line with Freddie and Fannie is our politicians didn’t do their job of oversight. Too busy fighting each other for reelection votes and their turn at the trough to repay their contributors.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 29, 2010 1:29 AM
Comment #307135

The media seems to do a good job just reporting the ‘news’ but anything political has to be taken with a grain of salt, IMO.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 29, 2010 11:23 AM
Comment #307143

Roy, I dunno. Come 2012, the voters might just flip-flop again, rather than do what the majority of voters did in year 1933 (when the majority of unhappy voters ousted 206 of 531 members of Congress).

It depends largely on the economy.

If things are better by 2012, the IN-PARTY will do well.

If things are worse by 2012, the IN-PARTY will do poorly.

And if things are very bad by 2012, then perhaps enough voters will do the same thing that the majority of voters did in year 1933, and choose NOT to repeatedly reward FOR-SALE, incompetent, and corrupt incumbent politicians with 90% re-election rates?

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress (who perpetuate these abuses) with 90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 29, 2010 12:58 PM
Comment #307145

Mr. Remer writes an explanation…”RF, my previous writing regarding weak business demand was in the context of consumer demand overall. My reference to ‘despite business demand increasing’ in my latest comment refers to a specific group of corporations like the mega commercial banks, not business demand across the economy as a whole.” “Thanks, for another coup counting.”

OK…glad you cleared that up. No need to use snarky comments.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 29, 2010 1:25 PM
Comment #307152

Roy, to take all political ‘news’ with a grain of salt is to miss what is going on politically, the truth from the propaganda can get lost. What I have found to be necessary is a viewing framework built on the assumption that everyone discussing political news has their biases an interpretation of political facts and events, and filter political news with a critical eye through that filter to screen out the propaganda while leaving relevant political information intact, upon which we all, as voters, must make our voting decisions. Presuming of course, that the reader/observer isn’t a partisan sideline cheerleader, in which case the capacity for a critical eye and objective assessment of political news is lost.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 29, 2010 2:19 PM
Comment #307154

d.a.n wrote: “Come 2012, the voters might just flip-flop again, rather than do what the majority of voters did in year 1933 “

Working toward that end is the most noble and honorable cause a voter who is fed up with today’s governance and politics can engage in. The public sentiment is fertile soil for such a wholesale rejection, but, is the option known, and therefore available to sufficient voters today to re-create that 1933 outcome?

Voters, and this is only my unverified guess, in 1933 were more aware of the power of their vote and the anti-incumbent option as a means of communicating their dissatisfaction, than voters of today. The media had less strings attached to the politicians then, than today, and the media was more prone to reflect public sentiment in an unbiased fashion then. Again, I have no data or research to verify this opinion, but, I suspect in 1933, suffrage and its potential power, and what its exercise could mean, was very much more in the forefront of the media and public discussion, in the wake of the woman’s suffrage movement having succeeded in 1920, just 13 years earlier.

I have to admit, however, that I am witnessing a considerably greater coverage by political news and commentaries of the anti-incumbent sentiment and probing for evidence of its manifestation in coming elections, than at any previous period of my lifetime. I find that very encouraging.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 29, 2010 2:54 PM
Comment #307160


The biggest difference between now and then is that we now have the social safety net in place. The long lines you see today are unemployment benefits lines rather than people lined up in the streets to receive a bowl of soup. Yes, there are soup kitchens and food banks and a few million are dependent on them, but it is not as obvious as during the Great Depression. The old and poor aren’t dying in droves because they now have Social Security and Medicare or Medicaid.

Obama doesn’t garner the respect that FDR had because he isn’t starting from scratch.

The big phenomenon of today is angry white upper middle class people bemoaning and protesting in the streets; the supposed takeover of America by liberals, blacks and the other poor who are enslaving them by depriving them of the tax dollars they are forced to pay for the social safety net.

How can progress on wage regression be made if the poor working class is not suffering as much as they should be? How can the middle class be further reduced unless progress on wage regression is achieved?

Posted by: jlw at August 29, 2010 3:34 PM
Comment #307191

jlw, That’s a good observation about the social safety net, unemployment, soup lines, etc., during the Great Depression.

That is a major reason things are not as bad today.
Not yet, anyway.
But are we getting the truth about everything?

However, some things may already be worse today:

  • The debt is near, if not already untenable. It’s questionable whether the solution is to print (money), borrow, and spend more, since no nation ever borrowed, money-printed, and spent its way to prosperity?
  • The $13.5 Trillion national debt is already beyond nightmare proportions? The $13.5 Trillion National Debt is growing fast. The Social Security and Medicare systems were pay-as-you-go, with a 78 Million baby-boomer bubble approaching/arriving, and are now costing more than the revenues collected annually (i.e. borrowing is now necessary to pay out all Social Security and Medicare benefits). And the so-called surpluses in the Social Security trust funds are really only I.O.U.s representing more borrowing and/or new money created out of thin air (i.e. more inflation).
  • As of OCT-2009, the federal National Debt per-capita is $38,000, which is 75% higher than the previous record-high (which was $21,719 in 2008 dollars in year 1945, after World War II).
  • As of OCT-2009, the federal National Debt per-capita is $38,000, which is 700% higher than the it was near the end of the Great Depression (which was $5,396 in 2008 dollars in year 1941).
  • The total per-capita debt of the $57+ Trillion nation-wide debt is 400% larger today than in year 1956 ($185K in 2008 inflation adjusted U.S. Dollars).
  • Inflation may really be 8% (not 2%).
  • Unemployemnt may really be 22% (not 9.5%).
  • GDP may really be -1.5% (not +1.6%).
  • And the falling U.S. Dollar has been in decline for about a decade.

The question is, how long can things continue the way they’re going now?

Banks make money by lending money.
However, when the total per-capita debt (of the $57+ Trillion nation-wide debt) is $185K per person (4 times more than in year 1956), few can afford to borrow more.
Not even at record low mortgage rates of 3%-to-4% matter !!!

    Foreclosures:
  • Year 2010: 3.3 million as of AUG-2010
  • Year 2009: 3.1 million
  • Year 2008: 2.5 million
  • Year 2007: 2.0 million
  • Year 2006: 1.2 million
  • Year 2005: 846,000
  • _______________________________________
  • TOTAL FORECLOSURES = 13 Million (from Jan-2005 to AUG-2009; average of about 2.6 Million per year)

Bankruptcies are even more numerous than foreclosures, with massive credit card debt.

The nation is not only swimming in debt, but it is drowning in debt.

Remember, in the Great Depression, in 2008 inflation adjusted dollars, the per-capita debt (i.e. per person) of the total federal national debt was $5,386 , and today, in 2008 inflation adjusted dollars, it is 7 times larger.
And the $57+ Trillion nation-wide debt is 4 times larger than it was in year 1956.

And much of it is due to usury rooted in greed (e.g. credit card interest rates jacked up without warning, tricky Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMs), bank fees galore, rampant mortgage fraud, etc.).
Currently, the banks are borrowing money at near-zero interest rates from the Federal Reserve (who creates that money out of thin air, or with only 10% reserves, at best).
However, lately, the majority of banks haven’t even wanted to borrow money at near-zero interest rates, because there are so few people and companies to loan that money to, who are able to bear more debt!!!
How long will it take to reduce the massive debt pyramid?
How many bankruptcies and foreclosures will it take to reduce the massive debt pyramid?
How long will it take to unwind so much debt and corruption?

The end result of so many manifestations of unchecked greed is:

  • Over 40% of WEALTH OWNED by the Wealthiest 1% of U.S. Population:

  • 45.0% |—x——————-
  • 42.5% |-x-x——————
  • 40.0% |xx-x—————xx
  • 37.5% |——x—xx——x—
  • 35.0% |——x—xx——x—
  • 32.5% |——-xx—x—x—-
  • 30.0% |——-xx—x—x—-
  • 27.5% |—————x-x—-
  • 25.0% |—————x-x—-
  • 22.5% |—————-x——
  • 20.0% |—————-x——
  • 00.0% |—————————-YEAR
  • _____ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
  • _____ 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0
  • _____ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
  • _____ 0 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0

So, how long can things continue this way?
We may have averted a total economic melt-down in late 2008 and early 2009, but are things really getting better?
Have there really been an significant reforms?
Or, have we merely bought (or borrowed) a little time?

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress with 90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 29, 2010 7:10 PM
Comment #307217

jlw wrote: “The big phenomenon of today is angry white upper middle class people bemoaning and protesting in the streets; the supposed takeover of America by liberals, blacks and the other poor who are enslaving them by depriving them of the tax dollars they are forced to pay for the social safety net.”

They have forgotten the terror and threat of border to border civil unrest of the late 1960’s and early 1970’s urban riots, partly fueled by rampant racial and income class discrimination, and the wholesale dumping of psychiatric patients onto America’s streets with the illogical belief that they had the where with all to take their new wonder drug medications at the same times each day, despite their having no home, no watch, and no money to buy the medications in the first place. Tax payers thought they were saving so much money by closing publicly supported psychiatric institutions. They were wrong! And we have been paying for it every since in myriad ways from loss of innocent lives to dramatic increases in costs in policing the homeless and transients whose lifestyles leave graffiti and litter requiring public dollar clean up with each moving of the transient population by police from locale A to locale B.

Too many people are not aware of the high cost to tax payers of neglect toward segments of its population. The longer the neglect, the higher the costs grow, as a general rule. Neglecting the illegal immigration population for example is costing tax payers ever more, each year. The Romans understood and insured against neglect of its inhabitants for centuries allowing it to become the most prosperous empire of its pre-Christian era. Then with the likes of Caligula, neglect set in, neglect of their borders, neglect of the political blackmail taking place by at the hands of the ‘barbarians’, and neglect of the infrastructure throughout the empire. The growing costs of that negligence became the empire’s downfall.

In every society, values are learned, and the majority of them learned early in life. America is failing to teach an ever greater number, the values that should be underwriting our nation’s future preservation and prosperity. One of the most central values to a successful democratically elected society is that of holding its leaders responsible for their actions and deeds. Sadly, America has a history of neglecting this most central value underpinning its entire construction.

And not all of this neglect is unintentional or accidental. Some of it is purposeful and directed and funded by some barely known individuals like the Koch brothers

Very enlightening article in the above link.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 30, 2010 2:43 AM
Comment #307228

David, you must have watched Glenn Beck at the mall this weekend. I’ll bang on one thing, accountability. Right now, none, with the possibility of a strong anti=incumbent movement over the next several years.

So far, the people/voters/taxpayers havent’ been able to hold their politicians accountable at all. Perks, earmarks, dark of night legislation, bills designed so that people won’t/can’t read them. Bills passed with only boiler plate information to be filled in later in ‘dark of night’ legislative sessions with a good mix of lobbyist doing the writing. On and on with the tautology.

Beck is right in that people need to hold themselves accountable before asking as much of their political reps. But, is asking enough? IMO, the politicians can’t be left to hold themselves accountable. They need some help from ‘we the people’.

What can be done with a McCain or the guy from Pa. who, when against the wall they just flip their position on an issue or two. Legislators police themselves, make and enforce their own rules. Parties go with whatever works to keep their politicos in office.

Therefore, it really is up to ‘we the people’ to police their elected officials. For example: this syndrom of ‘it’s not my Senator that’s the problem, it’s yours’. Have you not wished to be able to cast a vote against Ted Stephens, Phil Graham(?), and others of their ilk?

You can, with the Republic Sentry Party, a party with a different political attitude. In that party you can vote up/down on ANY legislator who happens to be a member of your party. If McCain was in your party and 20% of party members registered a complaint about him switching positions on immigration then a mandatory up/down vote would be called for by the party membership. McCain would have had ample chance to ‘communicate’ with the membership to convince them he was doing the right thing. Failing that, he could drop his idea of switching his position on the issue or risk and up/down vote. If he doesn’t garner 60% of favorable up/down vote then he is rejected from the party. Left to serve out the remainder of his term of office but with no further support from the Party.

Enforcing accountability through the people has great merit. Forces politicians to pay attention to the people and will cause the people to stay more atuned to politics, current issues, as they have an interest, some power in the political process.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 30, 2010 10:09 AM
Comment #307237

Roy, I agree with your comments. No, I would never watch Glenn Becks rally, except for a snippet of a minute or two. He is a waste of my time and education. I check in on his program now and then for 5 minutes or so, until he verifies that he is still a pathetically undereducated P.T. Barnum entertainer. Beck does, however, know one thing better than most, and that is that there is a sucker born every minute.

His rally was designed to promote himself as some new prophet from the Right, calling for a return to traditional values, code for a return to segregation, wide income disparity, out of sight and across the tracks poor, and the end of safety nets for the lower middle classes and poor.

It is not so remarkable, though, that he can be so transparent, and yet, maintain such an ardent following by many who have just as much mental capacity, but, suspend it for his profit and benefit. A great many Americans are wired to have their heart strings tugged at, routinely. My sister lives for the vicarious emotional roller coaster of TV’s soap operas decades old, which she has watched at least 15 times each and every episode.

Glenn Beck knows how to play those heart strings, which bypass intellectual circuits altogether and anything resembling objective critical analysis of what he has to say. He is no prophet from the Right. He is however, the new P.T. Barnum of the Right.

I see where a number of moderate and centrist Republicans and GOP supporters have some pretty negative critique of Beck and his performance this weekend. Goes without saying the Left would by hypercritical of him, with, or without reason.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 30, 2010 10:59 AM
Comment #307242


The head count is what is most important to Beck. That and the TV ratings will determine the number of millions he made this weekend. A predetermined amount based on the number of heads.

Extremely dangerous things can occur when truths divorced from rationality are allowed to prevail.

Posted by: jlw at August 30, 2010 1:39 PM
Comment #307255

The people that showed for Beck are ready for a ‘new deal’ and the D’s and R’s are not part of it. I find no fault with advocating for religion and your God of choice. No fault with trying to educate the masses on the Founder’s and their writings, intentions. No fault in pointing out that the admin has brought into their mix the Underground Weathermen of the 60’s/70’s. Noboby, as I am aware, is taking these topics to the people other than Beck.

I’ve heard Beck attack the D’s and the R’s. He, as a red blooded American, should be in it for the money but he hasn ‘t shown any predisposition for a political gig.

For my own self-interest I am finicky about who I hang with. If I find a predisposition for drugs, the socially unkept such as Wx Men, Commies, Socialist and the like I tend to steer clear of them.

I don’t understand a lot of things about people; why they want to buy drugs to addel their brains while folks are being killed on the border, why they are willing to buy cheap goods from foreign sweat shops, etc.

But, I don’t want to prejudge Beck until he gives me some sign of being a person I should fear, or steer clear of, which is not the case to date. I’m with FDR on this one as it relates to Beck, ‘we have nothing to fear but fear itself’.

Some allegations being made that he wants to return to the 1900’s or resegregate the country. Would anyone care to cite something that Beck has said or done that might provide insight as to his disposition? Is it reasonable to suggest that black people wasn’t invited or did they choose not to come? Do black people know something the hundred’s of thousands who attended don’t?

In today’s Wash Post a seemingly well respected writer, Courtland Milloy, wrote an editorial piece entitled ‘the only thing being restored by Beck is prejudice’. “reveled in the rapture of his own twisted dreams, not everyone could see that he bore the mark of the wolf and was, in fact, the Anti-King.” On Beck’s show of respect for the military “…by wrapping his political agenda in the blood of fallen soldiers, skeptics would have to cut through the flag too get at him.” Ending with “Beware the Anti-King, a howling wolf that shreds truth like so much floss on a werewolf’s fang. And do repent. For the end is near.”

I confess, I got none of that from anything Beck said or did.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 30, 2010 4:27 PM
Comment #307256

David, traditional values to me means Thanksgiving turkey at grandma’s, etc. I can’t stretch it fer enuff to where ‘traditional values’ would equate to slavery or resegreation, etc. It might help if I were smoking something, IMO.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 30, 2010 4:35 PM
Comment #307262


I confess, I got none of that from anything Beck said or did.

If you go back to before Hitler obtained power in Germany, there would be millions of Germans who would confess they got none of that from what he was saying or doing. They certainly got who the enemies, both internal and external, of Germany were from what he was saying. They got the message about restoring German traditional values and Germany’s greatness, returning it to its rightful place in the world.

Posted by: jlw at August 30, 2010 6:39 PM
Comment #307264

Don’t mean to be hogging the bandwidth, but O’Riley is doing an hour on the Beck event this evening.

Also, noteworthy that Beck went through several major papers and found NONE that related the reason for the event. None mentioned the ‘Black Brigade’, some couple of hundred men of the cloth from all faiths bound together in an effort to bring unity amongst us. Nothing about Beck’s challenge to people for ‘forty days and forty nights’ of getting right with God, praying on your knees daily. Nothing about Becks suggesting that hard times are coming and people need to know what they stand for and to know that they need to restore their faith in God first. Nothing of Faith, Hope and Charity, etc.

You wouldn’t think it possible in an educated society with a mature media in the year 2010. Beck has been able to draw the largest crowd ever assembled at the mall by just one person. Sixth largest crowd ever assembled, akin to Regan’s inaugeral.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 30, 2010 6:51 PM
Comment #307270

Roy, Please don’t get mad at me, because I like you, but there’s a lot of stuff about Beck that is highly questionable.
Please read about it here.

Trying to defend most (if not all) of the talking heads is likely to thoroughly frustrate one’s self, and turn themself into a pretzel, because a lot of what they do and say is indefensible. That doesn’t mean everything they say is a lie. They’re not that dumb. What they do is mix truths and lies, that appeal to their base which is one of the extremes:

  • Extreme # 1: One extreme wants regressive taxation, unfettered capitalism and freedom to explore and wallow in every manifestation of unchecked greed (which we have seen plenty of lately).
  • Extreme #2: The other extreme wants a nanny-state with citizens increasingly dependent on the government; with massive cradle-to-grave government programs (which are usually severely mismanaged, abused, and pilfered) that nurture a sense of entitlement and dependency on government; wants to grow government ever larger (despite the already current nightmare proportions); rewards failure and laziness; and perpetuates the myth that we can somehow all live at the expense of everyone else.

Most likely, as more people become aware of some of Glenn Beck’s quotes and deeds, the majority of voters will start to question it, because it doesn’t appear that the majority of people in this country (fortunately) are ready to follow Glenn Beck. Again, look very closely at some of the things Glenn Beck has said. Some of it is nutty. Really.

I’ve watched and/or listened to Glenn Beck, O’Reilly, Maddow, Limbaugh, Olbermann, Cavuto, Hannity, Matthews, etc.

It’s a mistake to put too much store or faith in most (if any) of the talking heads on TV, radio, MSM, etc.
The moment a person starts to idolize them, or put them on a pedestal, that person is in danger of starting to excuse and rationalize much of what they do and say.
That then often embrazens them to become more extreme.
While some of what they say may be true, that is merely a common tactic to lure others into their circular pattern of thought.
Glen Beck, and the other talking heads too, are eventually going to go too far some day (if he hasn’t already), because few people are corrupted by power, no matter how puny that power is.
And if you check out some of Glenn Beck’s quotes and deeds, some of it is indefensible.

The thing is, if any of these talking heads REALLY gave a damn about the country more than their PARTY, then they might have a REALLY HUGE following.
But most (if not all) of them have caved in to power and self-gain.
They don’t talk much about these major abuses, and the major problems today, growing in number and severity.
They talk more about the evil conservatives or the evil liberals and progressives, which only serves to fuel and wallow in the circular partisan warfare.
Today, the extremists are now arguing over how many people attended the Glenn Beck rally.

Yet, this is is one of the major problems in this U.S.
Sadly, there has been a significant, long-term decline in the quality (while increasing in cost) of U.S. Education:

  • U.S. was 3rd in the 1960s
  • U.S. fell to 5th place in the 1970s
  • U.S. fell to 14th in the 2000s,
  • U.S. fell to 18th or 19th in year 2009; source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Index
However, the majority of voters will still receive their education, whether it is sooner than later, or later with many years of more pain and misery.

    _____ U.S. Ranking in Education ______
  • 001 |————————————————-
  • 002 |-o———————————————-
  • 003 |—-o——————————————-
  • 004 |————————————————-
  • 005 |————o————————————
  • 006 |————————————————-
  • 007 |————————————————-
  • 008 |————————————————-
  • 009 |————————————————-
  • 010 |————————o————————
  • 011 |————————————————-
  • 012 |————————————————-
  • 013 |————————————————-
  • 014 |————————————o————
  • 015 |————————————————-
  • 016 |————————————————-
  • 017 |————————————————-
  • 018 |————————————————o
  • 019 |————————————————-
  • 020 |————————————————-
  • Year 1960_1970_1980_1990_2000_2010

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress (who perpetuate these with 90% re-election rates finally becomes toopainful.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 30, 2010 7:49 PM
Comment #307297

d.a.n, thanks for the post. I wasn’t aware of a Beck ‘lightin rod’ going off in the left column. I read through most of the thread. I’ve watched Beck quite a bit and he is as much an entertainer as a philosopher, IMO. Much of the Beck statements that turn people off are sort of out of context when comparing the written word to the way Beck delivers some those statements. Easy to understand that if one is opposed to Beck his comedic delivery about Nazism and such would get under their skin. I knew the moment he tagged Obama as a racists that one would come back to bite him.

IMO, Beck is not a perfect person, he says so a lot. I’ve blogged here before that it’s not so much the person as the message. I’m not for, or against Beck. I do think he is pre-judged as to his politics and intentions. My son called me today and said he had heard from someone that Beck and Sarah were going to make a bid for it.

Otherwise, I’ve no intention of defending Beck. He seems to be doing very well without me. As to his longer term, post 2012 election, position on things political, I am on the fence. He has bashed D’s and R’s and lately the R’s have been taking shots at him. My take on Beck is he, and no other, has made us more aware.

Radicals are in the White House – I didn’t know that.

Good incite as to how Wash politics/business works. He went through all the machinations the politicos and hangers-on went through to set up a number of ‘green’ businesses. Seems to be common knowledge stuff as what he detailed is exactly as one would think it to be. Kind of like legalized ENRON. But, the fact that socialist’s were making the plays was/is un-nerving to me. But, they have to make a living too.

He brought in some well versed people on U.S. history, the Founder’s and intimates regarding same. I enjoy learning about our early history. I had a year or two of high school history back in the 50’s, pretty well faded and in no detail like Beck’s guests have brought forth.

And, he has, for many, made religion PC. I’ve not heard any religious leaders back up on Beck. One of the final highlights of the event was to present a group, in significant number, I think he called the Black Brigade. This is a group of religious leaders representing all the major faiths in advocating for unification of the diverse peoples across the country. I like the idea of religion being at the center of the ‘moral compass’ of man. If I look around at godless nations most are still parked near the stone age. One could draw the inference from that if we turn from our God we may return to the stone age ourselves. Every person for him/her self there.

So, while I suspect Beck has conservative ties I think I’ll stay pat as to his future plans. Assuming the Repub’s will make great strides in 2012 we should become more enlightened about Beck.

A question on the education thing. Are U.S. learning institutions failing our young people or, do the numbers look bad comparatively as foreign learning institutions have improved markedly over the past 30 years? Also, I wonder if foreign youth educated by U.S. institutions are figured in the comparison data as being educated in their home country. I am aware that about 50% of U.S. graduate students are foreign nationals.

And, I’ve found a candidate for the Republican Sentry Party, if she wants it. The lady running as an –R- in Az against Harry Reid. She is coming on as pure centrist, populist. She has stated she would like to axe Fannie and Freddie, calling for a ‘full’ audit of the federal reserve, against amnesty and other such non-sense a D or and R will revert to during the loony (election) season. Otherwise, she seems a sensible woman.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 30, 2010 11:09 PM
Comment #307313


Dan and Roy, read this speech by Bill Moyers, hated by the right, and tell me how what he says differs from what you are saying. I don’t think there is hardly a difference at all.

This is Your Story - The Progressive Story of America.

You can google the title or perhaps it is still being aired on Link TV.

Posted by: jlw at August 31, 2010 2:07 AM
Comment #307318

Roy, Yes, Glenn Beck admits that he is not perfect, and admits to putting his foot in his mouth often. That could be bad for anyone running for office, and possibly worse for everyone else should they win.

I’m not sure if U.S. education numbers were lower because other nations only got better, but it probably a combination, and the decline of the quality of education in the U.S. is probably the biggest factor. Parents are culpable too. So much nation-wide fiscal and moral bankruptcy is most likely due to a majority of the nation’s people. Not only Dems or Repubs or the Education system, or Congress, etc.

jlw, I searched, but could not find that AUG-2010 Bill Moyers speech.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress with 90% re-election rates finally becomes toopainful.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 31, 2010 7:45 AM
Comment #307320

Roy said: “IMO, Beck is not a perfect person, he says so a lot.”

Saying so, a lot, is his license to continue to dole out lies and deceptions his audience wants to hear. And that audience is making Beck rich via the advertising sales on the Fake News Network. And Beck is acutely aware of where his next million is going to come from and what they want to hear and see. The very definition of an entertainer.

The problem is that so many cannot tell the difference between an entertainer and a journalist or legitimate political analyst, or philosopher. Beck is absolutely no philosopher. The first tenets of philosophy are integrity and consistency. Admitting repeatedly to errors in integrity and consistence invalidate Beck as a philosopher by the academic definition of the term. He is, however, very much a political partisan, and as we all know, integrity and consistency are never expected or required of political partisans. Blind faith and loyalty are the only requirements of political partisans.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2010 8:38 AM
Comment #307374


The thought of Beck as a philosopher would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad.

His next millions are going to be coming from his new website, Beck News.

Dan, I appologize for not being able to link, I gave up trying. Simple instruction challenged.

I think the speech was delivered in June, 2010. I read it at Common Dreams.Org. I googled the title-This Is Your Story-The Progressive Story Of America.

Posted by: jlw at August 31, 2010 6:22 PM
Comment #307399

jlw/d.a.n. Here is the Moyers’ story….

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0610-11.htm

Posted by: jane doe at August 31, 2010 8:56 PM
Comment #307569


Jane, thank you.

Posted by: jlw at September 2, 2010 3:43 PM
Comment #307603

jlw, you’re welcome.

Posted by: jane doe at September 2, 2010 8:02 PM
Comment #307690

jlw, jane doe,
Thanks for the link (www.commondreams.org/views03/0610-11.htm).

    From This is Your Story - The Progressive Story of America. Pass It On. by Bill Moyers, Text of speech to the Take Back America conference sponsored by the Campaign for America’s Future, June 4, 2003, Washington, DC:
    No wonder that what troubled our progressive forebears was not only the miasma of poverty in their nostrils, but the sour stink of a political system for sale. The United States Senate was a “millionaire’s club.” Money given to the political machines that controlled nominations could buy controlling influence in city halls, state houses and even courtrooms. Reforms and improvements ran into the immovable resistance of the almighty dollar. What, progressives wondered, would this do to the principles of popular government? Because all of them, whatever party they subscribed to, were inspired by the gospel of democracy. Inevitably, this swept them into the currents of politics, whether as active officeholders or persistent advocates.

That (government FOR-SALE) is one of the major problems facing the nation.

Wealth is not a crime.
But what should be a crime (but isn’t) is the abuse of wealth to unfairly influence and control government (i.e. government FOR-SALE).
90% of all elections are won by the candidate that spends the most money, which is usually the incumbent, who has many unfair advantages.
99.7% of all 200 million eligible voters are vastly out-spent by a very tiny 0.3% of the wealthiest voters who make 83% of all federal campaign donations of $200 or more.

However, the majority of voters are culpable too.
These facts should come as no surprise the majority of the voters.
So, what’s wrong with the voters ?
Why don’t they learn?
How much pain and misery of the majority of voters’ own making is required to finally learn that rewarding failure and couruption doesn’t work?
Are the majority of voters simply doomed to be used and abused by the ever-present cheaters and parasites … at least, until it finally becomes too painful?
Is it simply a fact of life; simply a fact of human nature?
It appears increasingly apparent that the majority of voters have what they want, when:

  • too many voters repeatedly reward FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, greedy, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates.
  • too many voters evidently love their party more than their country, or their own welfare, since too many voters lazily and blindly pull the party-lever, without even knowing all of the candidates on the ballot, much less the politicians’ voting records.
  • too many voters (about 45% of all 200 million eligible voters) don’t care enough to bother to vote at all.
  • too many voters do not know who their senators and representatives are, much less those incumbent politicians’ voting records.
  • too many voters are unaware that 99.7% of all 200 million eligible voters are vastly out-spent by a tiny 0.3% of the wealthiest voters who make a whopping 83% of all federal campaign donations of $200 or more.
  • too many voters elect 90% of the politicians who spend the most money (which are usually the incumbent politicians, who have many unfair incumbent advantages).
  • too many voters prefer to lazily engage in the blame game, and wallow in the blind, circular, divisive, distracting partisan-warfare, rather than admit that there is no important differences between the IN-Party and the OUT-Party, who sabotage each other merely for political gains, instead of what is best for the nation.
  • too many voters are delusional, and lazily believe that THEIR incumbent politician and THEIR political party is better than the OTHER party, when the only differences are unimportant.
  • too many voters think the problem is only with the OTHER party and fail to see the disturbing problems within THEIR own party.
  • too many voters find it easier to blame the OTHER party, rather than see the lack of any important differences between the OTHER party and THEIR own party.
  • too many voters whine and complain, and give Congress dismally low approval ratings (as low as 11%), but repeatedly re-elect and reward THEIR incumbent politicians in THEIR party with 85%-to-90% re-election rates (87% in the 2008 election);
  • too many voters are unaware of countless lies by the government and that many economic statistics have most likely, for a long time, been worse than what is being reported (source: www.ShadowStats.com/alternate_data ; One-Simple-Idea.com/USD_Falling.htm ; One-Simple-Idea.com/DebtUntenable1.htm ; One-Simple-Idea.com/Abuses.htm);
  • too many voters fail to understand that the incumbent politicians have cleverly rigged the system to increase incumbency rates by eliminating other choices in THEIR own party, and since many voters are unwilling to vote for anyone in the OTHER party, they repeatedly reward the incumbents with 85%-to-90% re-election rates.
  • too few voters (if any) can name 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, or even 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are responsible and accountable, but the majority of voters continue to reward incumbent politicians in Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates.
  • too many voters fail to see the insanity of doing the same thing over and over and over and over, while expecting a different result. Too many voters fail to understand that rewarding failure and corruption merely creates more failure and corruption, which creates more pain and misery for the majority of voters.
  • too many voters are too easily bribed with their own tax dollars. Too many voters have fallen for the myth that we can somehow all live at the expense of everyone else. Too many voters want a free ride, or want to be coddled and cared for from cradle-to-grave, or want to wallow in every manifestation of unchecked greed.
  • too many voters fail to see how they are puppets of clever puppeteers who cleverly tap-into the voters own selfishness; ironically, many people become cheer-leaders for the very cheaters and parasites that use and abuse others for their own self-gain and other nefarious purposes.
  • too many voters simply don’t care … at least, until (possibly) some day, the consequences of the majority of voters’ own negligence and short-term selfishness finally becomes too painful.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, greedy, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at September 4, 2010 12:26 PM
Comment #307769

d.a.n. You’re welcome

Posted by: jane doe at September 5, 2010 5:11 PM
Post a comment