Get this, Donald Trump was actually right about one thing - in order to make Washington DC work for the people, those elected by the people cannot spend their careers in Washington.
The elected officials were never supposed to become career politicians according to the founding fathers of our nations. They were supposed to serve for a certain amount of time and return to their prior career afterwards. This way the government would stay connected with the people it served, because the decisions they made while in office would also affect them after they have completed their terms.
In addition, the added benefit of changing elected officials more often is that the special interest lobbies will be unable to depend on career politicians remaining in their pockets for the long term. They will need to court each and every newcomer, which won't be as easy since being bought for the short term will have potential dire consequences for their long term careers.
It is a very simple thing to say that term limits should become law, but it is incredibly difficult to make this a reality. The elected officials who enjoy unlimited benefits at taxpayer expense will not turn off their cash flow willingly. But besides Trump being right about it and promoting the idea, Senator Ted Cruz and Representative Ron DeSantis have introduced legislation this past January 3rd.
Unfortunately, politicians like Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer want the American people to forget about this proposal. Even politicians I used to have respect for, will not return phone calls or emails about the matter. Yes, the cash flow that being a career politician is quite a powerful force over serving the people that have elected you - it is a drug addiction. Well, I say it is time for an intervention.
We need to call, email, and show up at our elected officials offices. We need to let them know that if they do not support the term limits legislation proposal that should become law, this will be the last term they will ever serve.
Showing posts with label Democrat. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrat. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 21, 2017
Sunday, February 19, 2017
Breaking Up Parties
Now is the time and a chance to become a more civilized functioning country with a government that more closely represents each and every one of you - American citizens.
As long we have the two-party stranglehold over the USA government, the average American citizen will never be truly represented by the politicians we elect. Let me explain this in several simple points.
1) When only two parties control the political landscape, you have polarizing black and white views on each side. This makes it nearly impossible to make a nuanced choice of whom to support and for whom to cast a vote, as neither side will ever represent the vast majority of the American population. As a result, most American citizens do not participate in the election process. The majority that do wind up voting are left with a terribly choice - which candidate do I dislike less? When the candidates for any office are not even close to representing your views and values, there is no meaningful choice even when you have the right to choose.
2) When either party has the majority of Senate and House of Representatives, while also having the Presidential seat, the opposing sides don't have to negotiate. The controlling party can simply pass legislation and push through its policy without any regard for the other side. In the majority of other democracies in the civilized world, there are multiple parties that more closely represent the differing views of their population. In these cases, a party may win an election with a 25% percent of the vote, sometimes as high as 35%. But it almost never results in a flat out majority. This means that the winning party needs to negotiate with other parties, form a coalition, discuss and amend their proposals to fit the desires of the majority of their population. It is a much more true to form representative democracy than what we currently have to endure.
3) It is incredibly easy for big money interest groups to control the political landscape. There are big money lobbyists that play a heavy hand in influencing our government's policies via monetary contributions to the two major political parties and their candidates. Pharmacy, Insurance, Banking, Tobacco, Gun and various other lobbies have our American government in their back pockets. It is really easy to do - just donate money to both parties. Whoever wins the controlling seats in our government, the big money contributors are guaranteed that their interests are protected no matter what. If there are multiple parties that have to negotiate with each other and be held accountable to the actual views of the people who elect them, the lobbyists will not have as much sway over the legislation.
I believe that we are living in an extraordinary time of unprecedented opportunity, on which we owe it to ourselves and future generations to capitalize. The 2016 election has exposed and opened up the fault lines in both the Democrat and Republican parties. The Democrats screwed up big league by internal collusion in favoring one candidate in the primaries over another, while the Republicans were fighting among themselves and rolling down the hill into disarray, until they miraculously emerged on top of the orange mountain.
As a result, the Democrats have internal battles that are pulling the party into Progressives, Traditional Democrats, and those who now identify as Independents. The Republicans have an even more fierce battle among them between Traditional Republicans, Tea Party, Evangelicals, Reformers and Hardcore Conservatives.
We, as American citizens, must force these political fault-lines to crack these parties apart into smaller more specific ones. How do we do this? Through putting pressure on our elected officials with our votes. We need to make each and every politician recognize that we will, from this point on, hold them accountable for their action (or inaction) as our representatives. After enough politicians realize that the status quo no longer suits their office, the polarizing methodologies of the two-party stranglehold will be left in the rear-view mirror of history. Make your vote count in every single election, no matter how small, from this point on.
As long we have the two-party stranglehold over the USA government, the average American citizen will never be truly represented by the politicians we elect. Let me explain this in several simple points.
1) When only two parties control the political landscape, you have polarizing black and white views on each side. This makes it nearly impossible to make a nuanced choice of whom to support and for whom to cast a vote, as neither side will ever represent the vast majority of the American population. As a result, most American citizens do not participate in the election process. The majority that do wind up voting are left with a terribly choice - which candidate do I dislike less? When the candidates for any office are not even close to representing your views and values, there is no meaningful choice even when you have the right to choose.
2) When either party has the majority of Senate and House of Representatives, while also having the Presidential seat, the opposing sides don't have to negotiate. The controlling party can simply pass legislation and push through its policy without any regard for the other side. In the majority of other democracies in the civilized world, there are multiple parties that more closely represent the differing views of their population. In these cases, a party may win an election with a 25% percent of the vote, sometimes as high as 35%. But it almost never results in a flat out majority. This means that the winning party needs to negotiate with other parties, form a coalition, discuss and amend their proposals to fit the desires of the majority of their population. It is a much more true to form representative democracy than what we currently have to endure.
3) It is incredibly easy for big money interest groups to control the political landscape. There are big money lobbyists that play a heavy hand in influencing our government's policies via monetary contributions to the two major political parties and their candidates. Pharmacy, Insurance, Banking, Tobacco, Gun and various other lobbies have our American government in their back pockets. It is really easy to do - just donate money to both parties. Whoever wins the controlling seats in our government, the big money contributors are guaranteed that their interests are protected no matter what. If there are multiple parties that have to negotiate with each other and be held accountable to the actual views of the people who elect them, the lobbyists will not have as much sway over the legislation.
I believe that we are living in an extraordinary time of unprecedented opportunity, on which we owe it to ourselves and future generations to capitalize. The 2016 election has exposed and opened up the fault lines in both the Democrat and Republican parties. The Democrats screwed up big league by internal collusion in favoring one candidate in the primaries over another, while the Republicans were fighting among themselves and rolling down the hill into disarray, until they miraculously emerged on top of the orange mountain.
As a result, the Democrats have internal battles that are pulling the party into Progressives, Traditional Democrats, and those who now identify as Independents. The Republicans have an even more fierce battle among them between Traditional Republicans, Tea Party, Evangelicals, Reformers and Hardcore Conservatives.
We, as American citizens, must force these political fault-lines to crack these parties apart into smaller more specific ones. How do we do this? Through putting pressure on our elected officials with our votes. We need to make each and every politician recognize that we will, from this point on, hold them accountable for their action (or inaction) as our representatives. After enough politicians realize that the status quo no longer suits their office, the polarizing methodologies of the two-party stranglehold will be left in the rear-view mirror of history. Make your vote count in every single election, no matter how small, from this point on.
Saturday, February 18, 2017
Opportunity Blueprint
In modern times, we find ourselves a highly divided country with an alarming (and continuously growing) disparity in terms of income between the classes of our society. Incomes diverge, as expenses grow. It hasn't always been that way, but this is where we are and we have to resolve these issues before our nation collapses along the fault-lines of growing division.
First of all, let me say this clearly - it is all about money. There literally is nothing else that divides us at the core except for money. Racism, anti-antisemitism, xenophobia, islamophobia, etc. are all just the byproducts of the basic problem where people fear for their financial well being due to a perceived threat or a poverty-stricken reality makes people desperate enough to believe.
While these threats are just untrue and ridiculous at the core, the division we see across our nation are real. Furthermore, the proposed solutions to the economic divergence/disparity among the classes couldn't be more different and polarizing from both Democrats and Republicans. But without a meaningful admission of the core problem, neither of these one-sided proposals have any viable way of solving the root of the problem.
The government earns money from taxing the citizens' incomes, purchases, sales, gifts, etc. The majority of the revenue comes from income tax. The economy strives when the citizens are capable and motivated to spend their disposable incomes. As a result, it drives corporate profits and government revenues up. Finally, businesses see a reason to keep people employed and hire more staff to expand in order to meet the demand.
It has long been a predominant Republican belief that applying a flat tax across all tax brackets will raise enough revenue to balance the budget. However, taxing the lower classes and those below the poverty line would not only drive people into a further financial despair, it would also require additional Federal spending to accommodate those suffering from such a tax program. The general population will have less disposable income, the businesses will lay off staff due to waning demand and the government will be left with an ever-declining revenue. It is a losing scenario.
It has long been a predominant Democrat belief that spending government funds to hire people and create government sponsored projects are ways to increase employment and, subsequently, increase the government's revenue stream. While this appears to be a good plan in theory, it is a totally different result in practice. When you are spending tax revenue on hiring public and creating projects that do not have a corresponding demand, you are in fact cannibalizing the government funds. Yes, the unemployment decreases and the government revenues increase. However, your spending outpaces the revenue received. It is a net negative effect and a losing scenario as well.
What I propose is a return to near-parity in terms of net income. What does that mean? Net income is the total amount of money a person takes home from their wages after all taxes (including income tax) are paid. How would someone increase the incomes of the poverty line and lower classes? Simple, it would involve a two-fold plan of income re-balancing in an employer-employee environment.
First, the government would need to institute an enforceable guideline for compensation of companies' lowest paid employees to be no less than a certain reasonable percentage of the highest earning employee (usually the CEO). This way, each company is required to distribute its profits more fairly and each employee earns enough to where the taxes no longer cripple them below a living wage (that would otherwise require them to borrow in order to survive).
Second, the government would need to protect American companies and workers from outsourcing and in-sourcing scenarios. A lot of companies began to chase profits in the 1990s with cheap overseas labor that resulted in higher profit margins. However, this all came at taxpayer expense as hundreds of thousands of Americans lost their source of a living wage. The government loses revenue from taxes on those incomes and is now forced to spend their depleting revenue to support the newly unemployed. It is time to stop the bleeding. United States is still the leading consumer economy in the world. As such, it can dictate what US companies' foreign manufactured goods can pay in taxes - recognizing that one such product or service bought, is one American product or service left with declining demand. To solve this problematic economic minefield, the government needs to gradually phase in a tax of (5%, 10%, 15%... n%), where n% equals the difference in cost between a comparable American product (or service) + 2%. This will level the playing field for US produced goods and services, while providing American companies operating overseas with enough time to move back their operations, avoid losing government incentives and hire American workers.
The end result will be a greater level of net income for majority of Americans, a new degree of income parity between the highest and lowest earners, protection for American workers' incomes, increased disposable income spending, increased government revenue, reduced unemployment benefits spending and a more stable economy.
And maybe, just maybe, when we are in a new era of wholesale economic revival, our divisions will greatly diminish as our incomes and interests converge.
First of all, let me say this clearly - it is all about money. There literally is nothing else that divides us at the core except for money. Racism, anti-antisemitism, xenophobia, islamophobia, etc. are all just the byproducts of the basic problem where people fear for their financial well being due to a perceived threat or a poverty-stricken reality makes people desperate enough to believe.
While these threats are just untrue and ridiculous at the core, the division we see across our nation are real. Furthermore, the proposed solutions to the economic divergence/disparity among the classes couldn't be more different and polarizing from both Democrats and Republicans. But without a meaningful admission of the core problem, neither of these one-sided proposals have any viable way of solving the root of the problem.
The government earns money from taxing the citizens' incomes, purchases, sales, gifts, etc. The majority of the revenue comes from income tax. The economy strives when the citizens are capable and motivated to spend their disposable incomes. As a result, it drives corporate profits and government revenues up. Finally, businesses see a reason to keep people employed and hire more staff to expand in order to meet the demand.
It has long been a predominant Republican belief that applying a flat tax across all tax brackets will raise enough revenue to balance the budget. However, taxing the lower classes and those below the poverty line would not only drive people into a further financial despair, it would also require additional Federal spending to accommodate those suffering from such a tax program. The general population will have less disposable income, the businesses will lay off staff due to waning demand and the government will be left with an ever-declining revenue. It is a losing scenario.
It has long been a predominant Democrat belief that spending government funds to hire people and create government sponsored projects are ways to increase employment and, subsequently, increase the government's revenue stream. While this appears to be a good plan in theory, it is a totally different result in practice. When you are spending tax revenue on hiring public and creating projects that do not have a corresponding demand, you are in fact cannibalizing the government funds. Yes, the unemployment decreases and the government revenues increase. However, your spending outpaces the revenue received. It is a net negative effect and a losing scenario as well.
What I propose is a return to near-parity in terms of net income. What does that mean? Net income is the total amount of money a person takes home from their wages after all taxes (including income tax) are paid. How would someone increase the incomes of the poverty line and lower classes? Simple, it would involve a two-fold plan of income re-balancing in an employer-employee environment.
First, the government would need to institute an enforceable guideline for compensation of companies' lowest paid employees to be no less than a certain reasonable percentage of the highest earning employee (usually the CEO). This way, each company is required to distribute its profits more fairly and each employee earns enough to where the taxes no longer cripple them below a living wage (that would otherwise require them to borrow in order to survive).
Second, the government would need to protect American companies and workers from outsourcing and in-sourcing scenarios. A lot of companies began to chase profits in the 1990s with cheap overseas labor that resulted in higher profit margins. However, this all came at taxpayer expense as hundreds of thousands of Americans lost their source of a living wage. The government loses revenue from taxes on those incomes and is now forced to spend their depleting revenue to support the newly unemployed. It is time to stop the bleeding. United States is still the leading consumer economy in the world. As such, it can dictate what US companies' foreign manufactured goods can pay in taxes - recognizing that one such product or service bought, is one American product or service left with declining demand. To solve this problematic economic minefield, the government needs to gradually phase in a tax of (5%, 10%, 15%... n%), where n% equals the difference in cost between a comparable American product (or service) + 2%. This will level the playing field for US produced goods and services, while providing American companies operating overseas with enough time to move back their operations, avoid losing government incentives and hire American workers.
The end result will be a greater level of net income for majority of Americans, a new degree of income parity between the highest and lowest earners, protection for American workers' incomes, increased disposable income spending, increased government revenue, reduced unemployment benefits spending and a more stable economy.
And maybe, just maybe, when we are in a new era of wholesale economic revival, our divisions will greatly diminish as our incomes and interests converge.
Sunday, March 20, 2016
Hillaryous Liar
Hillary Clinton may well become the Democratic Party's nominee for the President of the United States. And while we have been verbally bombarded enough to accept that the political version of reality includes a certain degree of bending the truth, the amount of straightforward lies told by the former secretary of state Hillary Clinton is astounding and obliterate that standard entirely.
The plethora of events in her life around politics support the fact that she is a pathological liar. She lies to achieve a certain political objective every time. And we have witnessed these lies in plain view over her entire career. Some highlights of these spectacular lies are listed below, starting with the most recent, and ending with her unethical role in the Watergate proceedings. The lack of ownership of what she says and inability to fact-check is truly remarkable. Yes, Hillary, you are a natural politician - you have learned to shamelessly lie in order to get what you want.
1) Hillary Clinton's claim that she didn't know where Bernie Sanders was, when she was trying to push forward the healthcare reform in 1993 and 1994, when not only was he standing right behind her, but she also turned around and thank him directly in a speech.
2) Hillary Clinton's claim that while Bernie Sanders criticizes Bill Clinton and Barak Obama, while he doesn't criticize George W. Bush. That was a flat out lie, which Sanders struck down with "I gather Secretary Clinton hasn’t listened to too many of my speeches".
3) Hillary Clinton's use of personal email account for official business purposes. As the Secretary of State, she has undoubtedly had a lot of classified information pass through her email account. Which is why it is important to use the official email account which comes with all the security protections - so that no classified information may fall in the wrong hands. Her action is currently under Federal investigation, for which she may very well get indicted; unless she greased the wheels of the Federal investigators like she has of the Democratic super-delegates. Her excuse for using the private email account instead of an official one is that her predecessors were doing the same thing and that it is no big deal. Hypocrisy runs rampant in her logic. If it is no big deal, Hillary, then why did you send out a notice to all of your staff stating to only use their official email accounts when you took office?
4) Hillary Clinton's responsibility on the Benghazi tragedy. As the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton lobbied for a reduced military presence around the American embassy in order give the impression to Libyan people that the United States. But in that office, her primary allegiance should be to the American people and to keep the American people safe. Just as she has in much of her career, she has put the interests of foreigners ahead of her own countrymen. As a result of the diminished security around the embassy, American lives were lost. However, when asked about her role, she decided to play dumb and say that decisions about the security of the embassy compound were made by other individuals.
5) Hillary Clinton's "Clinton Foundation" is a Slush Fund. She and her husband have consistently boasted about how much good this non-profit organization provides. However, the figures just don't add up. When you bring in $140 million dollars in donations and only pay out $9 million in aid, while spending the rest on payroll, administration fees, conferences, flights, etc.; you're helping yourself first and foremost. While not directly on the foundation's payroll, the Clintons do receive free flights and other perks that fall into the administration fees category. Lying to the American public is natural for Hillary, but when you do it under the guise of aiding charities and noble causes, that's downright disgusting and fraudulent.
.
.
.
999) Hillary Clinton was dishonest and unethical from the very beginning. Forging political relationships with Ted Kennedy's campaign team and lying to skew the rules in his favor at the sake of due process in the investigation of Richard Nixon's actions leading up to the Watergate scandal. While working on the Watergate investigation in 1974, the lawyer who shared an office with her, John Labovitz, came to the Chief of Staff of the House Judiciary Committee to report Hillary Clinton for "her erroneous legal opinions and efforts to deny Nixon legal counsel". Upon further investigation, that same Chief of Staff who supervised Hillary Clinton, came to the conclusion that she "engaged in a variety of self-serving unethical practices in violation of House rules". That lie was also politically motivated - she was doing everything in her power to aid Ted Kennedy's potential bid for the White House.
So when you head to the polls in the Primary, remember that we have no idea what self-interests Hillary will bring with her to the White House. But we can be certain of one thing - it will be primarily a self-serving tenure at the expense of the American people.
The plethora of events in her life around politics support the fact that she is a pathological liar. She lies to achieve a certain political objective every time. And we have witnessed these lies in plain view over her entire career. Some highlights of these spectacular lies are listed below, starting with the most recent, and ending with her unethical role in the Watergate proceedings. The lack of ownership of what she says and inability to fact-check is truly remarkable. Yes, Hillary, you are a natural politician - you have learned to shamelessly lie in order to get what you want.
1) Hillary Clinton's claim that she didn't know where Bernie Sanders was, when she was trying to push forward the healthcare reform in 1993 and 1994, when not only was he standing right behind her, but she also turned around and thank him directly in a speech.
You have to admit, this is pretty funny.LIKE our page at Groopspeak for more!
Posted by Groopspeak on Saturday, March 12, 2016
2) Hillary Clinton's claim that while Bernie Sanders criticizes Bill Clinton and Barak Obama, while he doesn't criticize George W. Bush. That was a flat out lie, which Sanders struck down with "I gather Secretary Clinton hasn’t listened to too many of my speeches".
3) Hillary Clinton's use of personal email account for official business purposes. As the Secretary of State, she has undoubtedly had a lot of classified information pass through her email account. Which is why it is important to use the official email account which comes with all the security protections - so that no classified information may fall in the wrong hands. Her action is currently under Federal investigation, for which she may very well get indicted; unless she greased the wheels of the Federal investigators like she has of the Democratic super-delegates. Her excuse for using the private email account instead of an official one is that her predecessors were doing the same thing and that it is no big deal. Hypocrisy runs rampant in her logic. If it is no big deal, Hillary, then why did you send out a notice to all of your staff stating to only use their official email accounts when you took office?
4) Hillary Clinton's responsibility on the Benghazi tragedy. As the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton lobbied for a reduced military presence around the American embassy in order give the impression to Libyan people that the United States. But in that office, her primary allegiance should be to the American people and to keep the American people safe. Just as she has in much of her career, she has put the interests of foreigners ahead of her own countrymen. As a result of the diminished security around the embassy, American lives were lost. However, when asked about her role, she decided to play dumb and say that decisions about the security of the embassy compound were made by other individuals.
5) Hillary Clinton's "Clinton Foundation" is a Slush Fund. She and her husband have consistently boasted about how much good this non-profit organization provides. However, the figures just don't add up. When you bring in $140 million dollars in donations and only pay out $9 million in aid, while spending the rest on payroll, administration fees, conferences, flights, etc.; you're helping yourself first and foremost. While not directly on the foundation's payroll, the Clintons do receive free flights and other perks that fall into the administration fees category. Lying to the American public is natural for Hillary, but when you do it under the guise of aiding charities and noble causes, that's downright disgusting and fraudulent.
.
.
.
999) Hillary Clinton was dishonest and unethical from the very beginning. Forging political relationships with Ted Kennedy's campaign team and lying to skew the rules in his favor at the sake of due process in the investigation of Richard Nixon's actions leading up to the Watergate scandal. While working on the Watergate investigation in 1974, the lawyer who shared an office with her, John Labovitz, came to the Chief of Staff of the House Judiciary Committee to report Hillary Clinton for "her erroneous legal opinions and efforts to deny Nixon legal counsel". Upon further investigation, that same Chief of Staff who supervised Hillary Clinton, came to the conclusion that she "engaged in a variety of self-serving unethical practices in violation of House rules". That lie was also politically motivated - she was doing everything in her power to aid Ted Kennedy's potential bid for the White House.
So when you head to the polls in the Primary, remember that we have no idea what self-interests Hillary will bring with her to the White House. But we can be certain of one thing - it will be primarily a self-serving tenure at the expense of the American people.
Monday, March 14, 2016
The Anti-Establishment Candidate
The race for the POTUS post in 2016 has been anything but conventional so far, and we are only mid-way through the primary season. By all indications, it will ratchet up to reach new highs and lows in the coming months. Both major parties' primaries have seen the rise of an unconventional, anti-establishment if you will, candidate.
The Tycoon
In the case of the Republican party, we have the bombastic and brash businessman Donald Trump. He was born with a silver spoon in hand and progressed the Trump empire to the point where organizations now pay him a substantial amount of money to simply license his name. By his own account, he knows the art of the deal, and there's even a book about it. Judging by the way he has worked the Republican party and galvanized his supporters to this point, he is certainly a shrewd tactician. His freshman entry into politics is described as being out of the love for the country and the desire to make it great again. He speaks his mind, regardless of whether or not it is abrasive, thereby angering both the liberals and the Republican financial supporters.
The Activist
In the case of the Democratic party, we have the self-described mild mannered Democratic Socialist Bernard Sanders. He was standing at the picket line out of the womb, standing up for the rights of those who have been wronged by society, government, etc. He spent his early life struggling and writing, before entering politics. He has been, if nothing else, consistent in his career. He stands up for the poor and the middle class, using his vote to surgically pursue his agenda while striking down any notion to help the wealthy and the elite. He doesn't get into mud-slinging exchanges, even when provoked. He is financed largely through social media (crowdfunding), thereby posing a threat to both the Washington Lobbyists and the Democratic colleagues who are backed by corporate sponsors.
Dividing Bulworth
Both candidates bear resemblance to the fictional character Jay Billington Bulworth, a disillusioned senator played by Warren Beatty in the 1998 movie "Bulworth". In this movie, the character finds a purpose to his life by becoming a beacon of hope to the minority population that has become apathetic toward the political process, convinced that the government doesn't care about them.
Trump certainly brings the open speech with blunt sledgehammer statements that became the trademark of Bulworth. He is willing to attack the establishment status quo and its sponsors without fear of retribution. He has a plan to deport illegal immigrants, build a wall on the Mexican border, tax imported goods at a high percentage, temporarily suspend immigration of Muslims, and revise international trade deals in order to reduce the deficit. He does not believe in political correctness and believes we have become too sensitive to small issues, while being desensitized to the larger problems. The bravado and flamboyant orator skills of Bulworth, without a question belong to Trump.
Sanders has been an activist his entire life and is relishing the moment to speak during his campaign about the existing injustice on a national stage. Just like Bulworth, he aims to disclose the minority discrimination in both the legal and economic arenas. In addition, he attacks the insurance companies and their close relationship with the government. He also attacks the big businesses and bank industry for destroying the incomes of the poor, middle class, as well as the income race to the bottom that has been spawned by businesses exporting American jobs overseas. Furthermore, he insists that public colleges and universities should roll back their tuition to close to small fraction of their current cost. The initiative of Bulworth to protect minorities, poor and the middle class certainly belong to Sanders.
Establishment Opposition
Both parties wanted to oust Trump and Sanders as soon as they saw their candidacy being viable. It is worth noting that both Republicans and Democrats initially laughed at the rookie politician coming from real estate industry and the socialist activist independent. However, when they gained sifnificant momentum, both parties started 'greasing the wheels' in order to stonewall both campaigns.
For the Democrats, who have the most undemocratic means at their disposal in the form of 'superdelegates', it is a simple task. Therefore Sanders' only opponent, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, began to kiss superdelegate ass right away, and now has a gigantic lead over Sanders in this aspect - virtually assuring that Sanders will not be the Democrat nominee, even if he wins the popular party vote by the time of the Democratic convention. But if he wins the popular vote, the outcry against Clinton nomination will be justified and could turn the predictable outcome the other way.
For the Republicans, they came to realization that Trump is a real contender way too late. Now that he has a sizable delegate lead heading into March 15 primaries that will put 25% of Republican Delegates up for grabs, they have poured tens of millions of dollars into negative ads against Trump, has senior party members speak out against him and use the media to place him in negative light every step of the way (even when the spin is a far stretch from reality). But if Trump runs the table on March 15th, his nomination is almost guaranteed.
The Conclusion
For far too long, both parties have enjoyed their status quo lobby money and corporate sponsorship. For far too long, we the public have been sacrificed for the good of the corporate America by the very politicians we elect. And we have all grown apathetic towards the election process for this very reason. We now stand on the precipice of a tremendous event in politics - where our next President is not guided by the corporate sponsors nor influenced by lobbies in any way shape or form. Our elections could have a deep meaning again, if we can only reject establishment candidates.
Obviously, your vote is yours and so is the decision you make when your state votes in the primaries/caucuses and the general election. But I urge you for the sake of our country, please consider the non-establishment candidate when you go to the polls.
The Tycoon
In the case of the Republican party, we have the bombastic and brash businessman Donald Trump. He was born with a silver spoon in hand and progressed the Trump empire to the point where organizations now pay him a substantial amount of money to simply license his name. By his own account, he knows the art of the deal, and there's even a book about it. Judging by the way he has worked the Republican party and galvanized his supporters to this point, he is certainly a shrewd tactician. His freshman entry into politics is described as being out of the love for the country and the desire to make it great again. He speaks his mind, regardless of whether or not it is abrasive, thereby angering both the liberals and the Republican financial supporters.
The Activist
In the case of the Democratic party, we have the self-described mild mannered Democratic Socialist Bernard Sanders. He was standing at the picket line out of the womb, standing up for the rights of those who have been wronged by society, government, etc. He spent his early life struggling and writing, before entering politics. He has been, if nothing else, consistent in his career. He stands up for the poor and the middle class, using his vote to surgically pursue his agenda while striking down any notion to help the wealthy and the elite. He doesn't get into mud-slinging exchanges, even when provoked. He is financed largely through social media (crowdfunding), thereby posing a threat to both the Washington Lobbyists and the Democratic colleagues who are backed by corporate sponsors.
Dividing Bulworth
Both candidates bear resemblance to the fictional character Jay Billington Bulworth, a disillusioned senator played by Warren Beatty in the 1998 movie "Bulworth". In this movie, the character finds a purpose to his life by becoming a beacon of hope to the minority population that has become apathetic toward the political process, convinced that the government doesn't care about them.
Trump certainly brings the open speech with blunt sledgehammer statements that became the trademark of Bulworth. He is willing to attack the establishment status quo and its sponsors without fear of retribution. He has a plan to deport illegal immigrants, build a wall on the Mexican border, tax imported goods at a high percentage, temporarily suspend immigration of Muslims, and revise international trade deals in order to reduce the deficit. He does not believe in political correctness and believes we have become too sensitive to small issues, while being desensitized to the larger problems. The bravado and flamboyant orator skills of Bulworth, without a question belong to Trump.
Sanders has been an activist his entire life and is relishing the moment to speak during his campaign about the existing injustice on a national stage. Just like Bulworth, he aims to disclose the minority discrimination in both the legal and economic arenas. In addition, he attacks the insurance companies and their close relationship with the government. He also attacks the big businesses and bank industry for destroying the incomes of the poor, middle class, as well as the income race to the bottom that has been spawned by businesses exporting American jobs overseas. Furthermore, he insists that public colleges and universities should roll back their tuition to close to small fraction of their current cost. The initiative of Bulworth to protect minorities, poor and the middle class certainly belong to Sanders.
Establishment Opposition
Both parties wanted to oust Trump and Sanders as soon as they saw their candidacy being viable. It is worth noting that both Republicans and Democrats initially laughed at the rookie politician coming from real estate industry and the socialist activist independent. However, when they gained sifnificant momentum, both parties started 'greasing the wheels' in order to stonewall both campaigns.
For the Democrats, who have the most undemocratic means at their disposal in the form of 'superdelegates', it is a simple task. Therefore Sanders' only opponent, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, began to kiss superdelegate ass right away, and now has a gigantic lead over Sanders in this aspect - virtually assuring that Sanders will not be the Democrat nominee, even if he wins the popular party vote by the time of the Democratic convention. But if he wins the popular vote, the outcry against Clinton nomination will be justified and could turn the predictable outcome the other way.
For the Republicans, they came to realization that Trump is a real contender way too late. Now that he has a sizable delegate lead heading into March 15 primaries that will put 25% of Republican Delegates up for grabs, they have poured tens of millions of dollars into negative ads against Trump, has senior party members speak out against him and use the media to place him in negative light every step of the way (even when the spin is a far stretch from reality). But if Trump runs the table on March 15th, his nomination is almost guaranteed.
The Conclusion
For far too long, both parties have enjoyed their status quo lobby money and corporate sponsorship. For far too long, we the public have been sacrificed for the good of the corporate America by the very politicians we elect. And we have all grown apathetic towards the election process for this very reason. We now stand on the precipice of a tremendous event in politics - where our next President is not guided by the corporate sponsors nor influenced by lobbies in any way shape or form. Our elections could have a deep meaning again, if we can only reject establishment candidates.
Obviously, your vote is yours and so is the decision you make when your state votes in the primaries/caucuses and the general election. But I urge you for the sake of our country, please consider the non-establishment candidate when you go to the polls.
Monday, December 5, 2011
Apathy, Polyarchy, and Squeezing the Middle
Isn't it great living in the United States of America? I certainly think so, because otherwise I wouldn't be able to write my column here every week. But make no mistake about it - we are losing the very foundation of what makes America great with each passing day. The worst part about this phenomenon is that we, as citizens, should be held accountable.
We may very well soon lose the freedom of expression, given the way that mayor Michael Bloomberg acted against the protesters and the media covering them. We have lost all our rights to privacy, given the way the Legislative Branch of our country has taken away our ability to sound off without that conversation being screened for keywords the government deems inappropriate. And now we are losing the foundation of unjust imprisonment without cause, the Habeas Corpus, which our wonderful government believes should be suspended. If this proposition goes through, anyone may be imprisoned and held without just cause. Yes, we are one step away from becoming a police state - the United Socialist Republics of America. Given all of rights that are taken away from us, we are headed towards a society that ultimately will be transformed into a dictatorship.
So how did the government obtain the ability to rule with an iron fist? The answer is voter apathy. More specifically, the answer is a gradual degradation of personal freedom, elected official limitations and the significance of your vote - facilitated by voter apathy. All of this happened, while the voting public at large remained blissfully ignorant. Ever since the forefathers of our country drew up the Constitution, every elected official has been trying to "game the system" and circumvent the underlying principles by claiming they were bringing forth an "improvement". As a result, we now have elected incompetent career politicians, who can take a "secret vote" in Congress so that their constituents can't even hold them accountable for the miscarriage of justice!
The majority of Americans simply believe that their vote counts for nothing. This fact has become a very destructive factor in the process of electing public officials. Let's look at the reasons why - electoral colleges and the two party system.
Electoral colleges disregard the popular vote, where my one vote in New Jersey is equal to someone's vote in Wyoming. Instead, Electoral colleges weigh the complete popular vote of a state with an assigned nominal value that is given to that state's winning party. This "homogenized" nominal value is why majority of individuals don't even bother showing up to vote. For example - I live in a very Democrat-dominated state and chances are most national elections will have New Jersey's nominal votes go to a Democratic candidate. As a result, many non-Democrats never bother showing up voting due to the belief that their vote will not be enough to overtake the Democratic majority. On the other side, many Democrats also don't show up to vote, because they believe there are enough Democrats to make the majority a winner every time without their vote.
The two party system stigmatizes and squeezes the middle class, making the largest segment of the United States' population feel ambivalent towards voting. If it were up to me, there would be no political parties whatsoever. A political party is a drug for the ignorant - a way to vote for a broad ideology that provides no real solutions, just feel-good monikers and slogans which get their party candidates elected instead. Let's take a look at the facts - we currently have a two-party system, where the vast majority of elected officials are either Democrats (who appeal to the lower class, the have-nots) and the Republicans (who appeal to the wealthy and the corporate). Both parties are raping the United States of America through entitlements. The Democrats are trying to take tax dollars and spend it on education, unemployment, tax breaks and free healthcare for the lower classes. The Republicans are trying to provide tax preferential treatment to corporations and upper class, spending wildly on defense, repeal anti-trust laws, and sell out American jobs overseas. Both Democrats and Republicans demolish the national budget. But who pays for these entitlements (corporate and individual)? Why it's the middle class, of course! The wealthy and Corporate hardly ever pay the taxes they actually must according to the tax code, while the lower class can't pay what it doesn't have. That leaves the middle class to foot the bill for politicians' irresponsible, and mostly irrelevant, promises. This results in the weakening of the middle class and, ultimately, the economy which depends upon it.
Had the voting America actually gotten together and lobbied the government for the abolition of the Electoral colleges and political parties, we may actually have candidates worth voting for, instead of some talking figure that must abide by the party ideology.
The United States of America is a Polyarchy state. Since we are very young, we are taught that America is the land of Democracy. That is simply false, because in a true Democracy every vote is counted equally, regardless of which part of the country it comes from. Furthermore, in a true Democracy there are no elected officials, as the people decide by a popular vote on every issue. In a Polyarchy, you have the elite few making decisions for the public. Therefore, United States of America is a Polyarchy state, where the power is being withdrawn from the people with each passing day.
Benjamin Franklin was once asked: "...shall we have a Monarchy or a Republic?"
To which he replied: "A Republic, if you can keep it."
...and we haven't been very good about keeping it.
We may very well soon lose the freedom of expression, given the way that mayor Michael Bloomberg acted against the protesters and the media covering them. We have lost all our rights to privacy, given the way the Legislative Branch of our country has taken away our ability to sound off without that conversation being screened for keywords the government deems inappropriate. And now we are losing the foundation of unjust imprisonment without cause, the Habeas Corpus, which our wonderful government believes should be suspended. If this proposition goes through, anyone may be imprisoned and held without just cause. Yes, we are one step away from becoming a police state - the United Socialist Republics of America. Given all of rights that are taken away from us, we are headed towards a society that ultimately will be transformed into a dictatorship.
So how did the government obtain the ability to rule with an iron fist? The answer is voter apathy. More specifically, the answer is a gradual degradation of personal freedom, elected official limitations and the significance of your vote - facilitated by voter apathy. All of this happened, while the voting public at large remained blissfully ignorant. Ever since the forefathers of our country drew up the Constitution, every elected official has been trying to "game the system" and circumvent the underlying principles by claiming they were bringing forth an "improvement". As a result, we now have elected incompetent career politicians, who can take a "secret vote" in Congress so that their constituents can't even hold them accountable for the miscarriage of justice!
The majority of Americans simply believe that their vote counts for nothing. This fact has become a very destructive factor in the process of electing public officials. Let's look at the reasons why - electoral colleges and the two party system.
Electoral colleges disregard the popular vote, where my one vote in New Jersey is equal to someone's vote in Wyoming. Instead, Electoral colleges weigh the complete popular vote of a state with an assigned nominal value that is given to that state's winning party. This "homogenized" nominal value is why majority of individuals don't even bother showing up to vote. For example - I live in a very Democrat-dominated state and chances are most national elections will have New Jersey's nominal votes go to a Democratic candidate. As a result, many non-Democrats never bother showing up voting due to the belief that their vote will not be enough to overtake the Democratic majority. On the other side, many Democrats also don't show up to vote, because they believe there are enough Democrats to make the majority a winner every time without their vote.
The two party system stigmatizes and squeezes the middle class, making the largest segment of the United States' population feel ambivalent towards voting. If it were up to me, there would be no political parties whatsoever. A political party is a drug for the ignorant - a way to vote for a broad ideology that provides no real solutions, just feel-good monikers and slogans which get their party candidates elected instead. Let's take a look at the facts - we currently have a two-party system, where the vast majority of elected officials are either Democrats (who appeal to the lower class, the have-nots) and the Republicans (who appeal to the wealthy and the corporate). Both parties are raping the United States of America through entitlements. The Democrats are trying to take tax dollars and spend it on education, unemployment, tax breaks and free healthcare for the lower classes. The Republicans are trying to provide tax preferential treatment to corporations and upper class, spending wildly on defense, repeal anti-trust laws, and sell out American jobs overseas. Both Democrats and Republicans demolish the national budget. But who pays for these entitlements (corporate and individual)? Why it's the middle class, of course! The wealthy and Corporate hardly ever pay the taxes they actually must according to the tax code, while the lower class can't pay what it doesn't have. That leaves the middle class to foot the bill for politicians' irresponsible, and mostly irrelevant, promises. This results in the weakening of the middle class and, ultimately, the economy which depends upon it.
Had the voting America actually gotten together and lobbied the government for the abolition of the Electoral colleges and political parties, we may actually have candidates worth voting for, instead of some talking figure that must abide by the party ideology.
The United States of America is a Polyarchy state. Since we are very young, we are taught that America is the land of Democracy. That is simply false, because in a true Democracy every vote is counted equally, regardless of which part of the country it comes from. Furthermore, in a true Democracy there are no elected officials, as the people decide by a popular vote on every issue. In a Polyarchy, you have the elite few making decisions for the public. Therefore, United States of America is a Polyarchy state, where the power is being withdrawn from the people with each passing day.
Benjamin Franklin was once asked: "...shall we have a Monarchy or a Republic?"
To which he replied: "A Republic, if you can keep it."
...and we haven't been very good about keeping it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)