Words politicians don’t want said…
By Jack E. Lohman
When you already have 60 votes in the senate, demanding bipartisanship is a lame excuse for doing what your corporate funders wanted in the first place. It’s just more of the game the Dems have been playing.
Neither party wants real fixes, because then the corporate money will cease to flow. Quit the wars and defense money dries up. Fix health care and insurance money dries up. Our congress will remain owned by corporations until Obama keeps his promise to fix campaign funding.
The voters learned that even after installing their favored party and giving them an unbreakable majority, they still lose out to the moneyed interests. Proof positive that we have a one-party system. Proof positive that neither party are for the people. Proof positive that we have a political and criminal conspiracy that should be prosecuted.
The voters didn’t seek bipartisanship, they voted the Republicans out and the Democrats in. Giving the Dems 60 votes was more than they asked for, more than they wanted, and certainly more than they deserved.
I can hear it now: “Damn, now that we have 100% control, how do we give some of it back?”
Scott Brown’s win made Obama’s day, because he now has his excuse when bending to his corporate funders. He can now blame the R’s when before he had to dance to the Jig, shifting blame from one supposedly disgruntled Dem to another.
All an orchestrated strategy to make it look to the voters like they really had this “ideological” difference when in fact it had to do with cash flow. Much like filibusters increase the flow of political cash.
The Dems can fix this by simply taking the R’s out of the equation for the balance of 2010 (by totally eliminating the filibuster, which they can do), and then doing the right thing for the public to get the party re-elected. But it’s not the public that they are concerned about; it’s their corporate funders.
Obama is intent on keeping the R’s in the loop so he can deny the public what it wants. In one case a single-payer health care system; in another, reform of the financial system; and still another, reform of our corporate shareholder rights. These industries helped fund his election and it’s now payback time. He is no better than the rest.
And while we voted out some politicians, the industries that fund the elections didn’t have to campaign. They are simply writing the same checks with a different name on them, and tickled pink that the public is willing to pay their salaries.
And I object to that, too. If the politicians are going to govern for the industry, let the industry pay their salary and benefits!
So if changing parties won’t fix it…
… a third party would be a good start. I voted for McCain but now wish I’d have voted for Ron Paul.
We must, every two years beginning in 2010, throw out the R’s and D’s, at least until they pass public funding of campaigns. ONLY having the elections funded by the taxpayers will return their allegiance to the nation’s well being.
But we have more problems than just political…
Everybody wants to be richer, and I don’t blame them. But Labor demanded and won higher wages, and CEOs responded by sending their jobs offshore. Now the CEOs demand and are winning control over government, which will remove the ability of citizens to afford their product.
Our economy and country is in a downward spiral, and the outcome will not be pretty. We got there because our politicians care more about campaign funding that they do a stable economy, and the only solution is to re-install our democracy.
Are the voters willing to make change happen? If so, 2010 is the year.
— Conservatives and Liberals have one common enemy: politicians that take money from corporations and spend half of our “discretionary taxes” paying them back.
— One of these days they’ll come together and throw the bastards out. All of them!
— Throwing them out is the ONLY thing what will get their attention. Everything else has been tried.
— The new grass roots Coffee Party, the Left’s answer to the Tea Party, are seeking to set up a branch in Wisconsin and other states.
— Obama says he’d rather be a good one-termer than a bad two-termer, but what if he’s a bad one-termer? Looks like the direction he’s headed.