POLITICAL PARTY POOPER

WE WON'T BE SAFE WHILE POLITICAL PARTIES ARE LEGAL

Posts Tagged ‘Democrat’

If I were President

Posted by politicalpartypooper on August 13, 2011

I’ve been having discussions with  a number of political people recently.  Let’s say that they’re political junkies.  Many, like me, are avowed Independents.  There are those remaining few who are brave enough to admit that they are a party hack…ahem…Republican or Democrat.  Those brave few are always the few who argue most vociferously for their obsolete ideology.

I can’t really recall one argument I’ve had with an Independent.  Maybe the Hacks are right; we don’t argue because we don’t stand for anything, except maybe fence-sitting.

Perish the thought.  Here’s what I stand for, and here’s what I would strive for if I were President:

* End the Bush tax cuts.  Anyone who believes we can solve our debt problem by cutting spending alone is naive, or reasonably insane.  There is no argument one can make against raising revenues when all we’re talking about is less than four percent in tax rates.

* Reform the estate tax.  Yes, there needs to be an estate tax.  Money “won” in an estate is income…and almost always, unearned income.  Being a member of a wealthy family doesn’t give you a pass to perpetual wealth without taxation.  If I earn $5,000,000 in one year, I get taxed on it.  So should you.  Especially since you probably DIDN’T earn it.  America wasn’t built on inheritance, and Capitalism isn’t based on inherited wealth.  It’s not a death tax; it’s an income tax.  We’re not taxing the dead guy.  We’re taxing the income that the living recipients receive free of charge or labor.  Husbands and wives, of course, would pay no estate tax, as our government views the rights of the surviving spouse to be an equal owner of the estate, and still living.

* Extend Congressional Terms to four years, and limit the number of terms to two.  No more career politicians.

* Reduce Senatorial terms to four years, and limit the number of terms to two.

*  Write a Free Trade Equity Act.  Simply put, demand that in any trade agreement that our nation makes or currently holds, an equal number of jobs have to be created between the two parties.  If American factories move overseas and create 1000 jobs in that foreign nation, that nation must reciprocate in kind.  No deviation is to be allowed.  Free Trade isn’t free if the results are as lopsided as they have been for the last twenty years.

* Write an Amendment to the Constitution that guarantees the Bill of Rights only to Natural Persons.  Corporations may be an assembly of natural persons, but they aren’t a natural person in and of themselves, and therefore, do not have the same rights that Natural Persons have; such as Free Speech.  This ought to end the debate about whether corporations or special interests (such as unions) can contribute big money to our campaigns.  While the people within those corporations or special interests may have an individual vested interest in the outcomes of elections and deserve their voices to be heard, the  entity of corporations and special interests do not have vested interests and shall have no voice in our system of government.  The Bill of Rights pertains to the individual, not to groups of individuals.  The right to worship as one sees fit, for example, is an individual right, not a corporate right.  Individuals have the right to organize according to their method of worship, but the organization itself has no say, no free speech with regards to our system of government.  Our Founders didn’t write a Corporate Bill of Rights; they wrote a natural person’s Bill of Rights, and defined what that Natural person is within it.

* A Tax code that is simple, equal, and fair, without loopholes for the wealthy.  What that tax rate may be would need to be determined, but whatever it ends up being, no one except the very poor would escape its full effect.  If we can find a rate near 17-19% that helps us maintain our budget and our social programs, that would be optimal.  But for the time being, if that rate needs to be one or two percent higher to help us pay down our debt and balance our budget, I think most Americans will be accepting of it.

* A program of employment for the long term unemployed.  We cannot pay unemployment benefits perpetually without return.  Our nation has massive infrastructure deficiencies, and employing the long unemployed toward this end would go a good way toward solving this need, while paying a fair wage and giving the newly employed a sense of contribution to their society.

 

To be continued

Advertisements

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »

How Corporatist-Conservative Policy Destroyed The American Economy

Posted by politicalpartypooper on July 21, 2010

I get asked repeatedly by clients and friends, “Pooper, when is the recovery going to happen?”

To which I answer, “Are you referring to the recession, or the actual beginning of the collapse of our economy?”  I typically get blank stares.

Allow me to expound.  What you are seeing in America today is not a recovery from anything; not from the “recession” (called so because we have to have a label for everything), not from jobs lost, not from jobs outsourced overseas…there has been no recovery and will be no recovery until we undo what Conservatives (and in some cases, Democrats) did to ruin the economy.

Here is where all of my conservative readers (I think there are seven) become belligerent.  Be patient.  I am going to paint the case of why Conservatives are to blame, and when I am done, you will not be able to refute it.  It’s not pretty.  I used to be a conservative, and am a small business owner.  I’m supposed to be a conservative’s best friend.  But I can’t be.  Their economic policies need to be lynched, forever.

Conservative economics used to mean reduced government oversight of free enterprise, and tax policies designed to encourage small business growth.  In essence, a conservative believed that it was the government’s job only to passively regulate industry from a distance, and that taxation was meant only as a means to secure our liberty and provide a safe environment for enterprise to flourish.  Business DID flourish in the United States, with a few rough spots along the way in our first one hundred and twenty-five years.  That’s why conservatives are called “conservatives”; they don’t like change.  Why fix something that isn’t broke?  Just keep the government small, allow business to govern itself, and everything will be alright.  Conservatives fought unionization, building codes, the forty hour work week, profit sharing, vacation, higher pay for overtime…the list goes on and on and on.   Their track record is a marvel; they literally believe that nothing is ever broken, that no business owner is taking advantage of his employees, and that business can regulate itself.

It was that kind of thinking that caused the first Great Depression.  But something happened to Conservatives in the 1930’s; they became irrelevant.  A near permanent Democratic majority kept Republicans fuming and on the outside looking in.  For decades they were powerless to stop the New Deal, The Great Society, Social Security, Medicare, the forty-hour work week, the minimum wage, building safety codes, OSHA, and on and on and on.  Regulation of power companies, telephone companies, banks, investment banks, and overseas commerce all came to pass while Conservatives could only watch and stew.

But in 1981, all of that ended.  Reagan ran on a platform of deregulation, limited government, and tax cuts and won.  What is amazing in its irony is that during the midst of the recession of 1981, Reagan actually agreed to raise taxes on the profits of corporations, in order to limit the growing deficit.  Even at that time, and despite all of the conservative rhetoric that tax cuts for corporations were good for job creation and deficit reduction, the only action Reagan ever took to reduce the growing deficit was to increase taxes on businesses by the largest amount in our history.   The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 instituted a three-year, $100 billion corporate tax hike—the largest tax increase since World War II.  That one tax increase proved that not even Ronald Reagan believed in trickle down economics.

But Reagan also succeeded in cutting taxes on the wealthiest Americans from near 70% to 50% in less than a year.  Had conservatives left that figure alone, our historical debt would be vastly different.  Instead, conservatives continue to use fear for the future as a tool for winning elections based on “fiscal conservatism”, which is the idea that only a conservative knows how to manage the national debt in a way that won’t cripple our grandchildren’s wallets.  Poppycock.  Their incessant tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and for corporations who ship jobs overseas is what has created the path to an unsustainable national debt.

Reagan instituted a phrase that conservatives use to this day:  Trickle Down (or Supply Side) economics…Reaganomics.  It is the philosophy that tax cuts for the top tier of American earners, and for Corporations will increase corporate profits, and create jobs through a trickling down process.  This, coupled with President George H.W. Bush’s demand for a fast track on the North American Free Trade Agreement began America on a collapse from which we will never emerge unless drastic measures are taken.

Conservatives believe that by allowing corporatists and wealthy Americans to keep more of the profits, and by encouraging them to trade internationally and build factories over seas, more prosperity than ever will trickle down to the rest of America, creating more, and better, higher paying jobs.

Sounds great!  Doesn’t it?

Unfortunately, it doesn’t work.

THE EVIDENCE

The first piece of evidence I present should be obvious, even to stubborn conservatives.

1.  By allowing large corporations reduced taxes and higher profit margins, the corporate philosophy of America changed.  It morphed from a partnership between management and labor to a partnership between management and stockholders.  Instead of quality products for a fair price, the old American way of doing business, enterprise became predicated upon profit alone.  Demand for greater return on investment drove management to look for new ways to cut labor costs and reduce expenses.  What resulted was an increasing call for free trade agreements that allowed corporations to transfer large blocks of their manufacturing overseas where labor was infinitely cheaper, and where regulations were not imposed to protect that cheap labor. President George H.W. Bush started this landslide by ramming NAFTA through, President Clinton continued it, and the most recent President George W. Bush extended it and in all likelihood, drove the final nails into the coffin.

Also occurring simultaneously was the increased demand for executive talent that could manage multi-national companies.  Along with that demand came vastly increased pay for executives, while manual labor pools in America shrunk and lost wage leverage.  That lost leverage has never been recovered, and has infiltrated even into the white collar world of lower management.  Where once there was a large enough pool of opportunity for American workers, there grew in its place an increasing number of unemployed or underemployed laborers, which exacerbated the lost leverage problem.  A worker today only has leverage if he has an opportunity to move from his current employer to a different one offering higher wages.  That possibility has all but evaporated with trickle down economics.  As more and more  jobs left American shores, the opportunity for leverage disappeared.  All of the leverage belongs with corporations today; exactly what conservatives, or should I say, corporatists, wanted.

By allowing corporations to manage based on profit alone, and enabling their greed for profit by removing traditional protectionist regulations on international trade, conservatives ushered in this new era of lost jobs, wages, and hope.  The jobs can’t return until American companies can compete without hiring labor overseas.

2.  I call this the Mega-Corp effect.   Consider the competition between large corporations hiring cheap labor overseas against smaller companies trying to compete while paying higher American wages.  Who will win?  It’s a no-brainer.  Large corporations have become much larger, morphing into mega-multi-national corporations against whom the much smaller American companies simply cannot compete.  As those smaller companies lost, the larger corporations bought them, forced mergers, or outright stole their technology and ideas, moving every bit of the manufacturing from the older, smaller company, overseas.

By allowing corporations to manage according to profit and greed alone, conservatives tilted the playing field heavily in favor of America’s largest corporations.  Smaller manufacturers simply could not compete, and were swallowed up.  Start-up manufacturers have only one chance to compete; they need to hold the patent on a completely new product, and typically, large corporations are buying up the rights to those patents from the inventors, from the profits that conservatives are so desperate that they have.  What happens to the jobs that those new patents might have created?  They go overseas, merged with the large corporation’s other overseas interests.

That’s why when I hear President Obama talk about America becoming the Clean Energy supplier of the world, I nearly choke.  Unless the free trade agreements are altered or torn up, every new patent for a clean energy product will be controlled by a large corporation, and it’s manufacture will occur overseas, where labor is cheaper and regulations cost less.  Large corporations simply have no incentive to manufacture or produce goods in America.  On the contrary, conservatives have created incentives for them to continue shipping American jobs overseas.  It’s a cycle that can only be ended by legislation that either reduces or destroys these free trade agreements.  But don’t hold your breath for President Obama to change the course of American business.  He is already rushing headlong into a new free trade agreement with South Korea.

The larger these big corporations become, the more impossible it is to compete with them; which vastly reduces choice and quality, while concentrating the greatest proportion of wealth in the hands of the few Mega Corps.  The same phenomenon has occurred in our Financial Industries.  The repealing of the Glass Steagall act of 1934 allowed commercial banks, investment banks, and insurance companies to merge and sell each other’s products.  The result was the formation of Banks-too-big-to-fail, and the most recent collapse of Wall Street.  Local community banks cannot compete with these mammoths, and are bought up one by one, eliminating choice and quality, along with providing these huge corporations with more and more money that they use to influence legislation in their favor.

3.  Profits that the wealthy and the corporations keep do not trickle down to America.  Where is the job creation occurring in this world?  In developing countries and in the East; namely China.  And why are American companies there?  Because free trade agreements removed the tarrifs and protections that enabled American workers to compete.  There is simply no way around this one, primeval fact.  It all began with tax cuts for corporations, higher and higher and higher demand for profit in lieu of quality and tradition, and removed protections for American workers.  That is Pandora’s box.  That is the legacy of Supply-side Economics and Free Trade.

4.The Race To The Bottom.  If you are a business owner who regularly deals with consumers (in my case, clients), you’ll recognize this one immediately.  Conservative economics dictate that the government deregulate, or to use Sarah Palin’s terminology, “Jus’ git outta our way!”  The philosophy behind this is that free enterprise can regulate itself much better than government can.  On the surface, that sounds almost right…almost true…almost sensible.

But if you own a business, in a field where there isn’t much regulation, I’ll bet you can name four or five competitors who are “snakes”.  These “snakes” are business owners whose sole purpose for enterprise is to take as much money as they can from their customer for the cheapest possible investment.  Whether that investment be materials, labor, information, or whatever, we all know who the snakes are.  For some of us, it’s an amazement they are allowed to be in business at all.  You know that if you are competing directly against them, they will “lowball” your perspective client to get the business, and then jack up their profit in after-the-sale charges or change orders.  It never fails; and these snakes rarely lose.

It’s the ultimate race to the bottom; spawned from a mentality of profit at any cost, even if that means cheating your client.   Even as you are reading this post, you know the names of businesses who did this as well as I do.  Goldman Sachs.  BP.  Exxon.  Haliburton.  AIG.  More?  Of course…too many to count.  That’s what happens when you deregulate.  You cannot trust EVERY business person to believe in providing a fair product for a fair price.  In fact, on Wall Street, that “fair price for a fair product” mentality is actually a minority, as it is amongst the Ultra Banks.  When the largest amount of money you can conceive of is up for grabs; and when the business sector in which this money resides is deregulated, the only thing you can be certain of is the race to the bottom of the ethics ladder.  People and entire corporations will sell their very souls to grab the largest piece of the pie, or be the biggest fish in the ocean.  In fact, they justify their greed by saying that if they don’t “strive” to be number one, they’ll be swallowed up by a bigger fish.  Easy mergers, easy derivatives, easy, cheap, overseas labor…all breed the race to the bottom of the ethics ladder.

No industry can truly regulate itself.  Business owners who believe in the fair market and in providing the best of their service for a fair price know that when the mongooses of regulation are removed, the snakes multiply.  That deregulation is a Basic Conservative Tenet is an undisputed fact.  That snakes breed, multiply, and create serious and oftentimes catastrophic financial disasters when deregulation occurs is unarguable.

5. What Conservative Deregulation Really Means.  Historically, Conservatives have been against some of the pillars of American Economics.  For example, Conservatives fought against Social Security insurance, Medicare, the minimum wage, the forty hour work week, the banning of asbestos in building materials and the right of a citizen to sue an asbestos manufacturer for liability in asbestos-health related cases.

But what does deregulation really mean?  In my industry, it meant repealing Glass-Steagall, the implosion of Wall Street, and the collapse of the American economy.  In another industry that I worked for in the 1990’s, it would mean reduced building-safety codes, reduction of power for OSHA, reduced fire codes, and fewer protections for construction workers, all things that Conservatives can really get their arms around.  After all, these industries can police themselves, according to Republicans like Palin and Newt Gingrich, and libertarians like John “I think unemployment benefits discourages people from looking for jobs” Stossel.

Ahhh yes…the race to the bottom in all of its glory.  Do you have any idea how much it costs to install a fire alarm in every room of every building, or emergency, battery powered lighting in every hallway?  Conservatives roll over in their graves for years at all of the “wasted” money.  And why bother removing asbestos insulation from a building when you can ignore it?  Besides, health effects from asbestos take years to develop, and by that time, the manufacturer will be out of business so…problem solved…no one to sue equals an equitable result for all parties, according to a conservative.

6.  The money goes to the top and stays there.  “Supply Side” economics is a policy that concentrates money at the top (corporations) in order for it to “trickle” down to the masses.  The more money there is at the top, the more money that trickles down…or so they say.  Something happened to that ,money, though, on the way to the bottom.  In 1980,  executive pay was only forty times greater than the average American salary.  Today, executive pay is more than five hundred times greater, meaning all that money concentrated at the top is staying at the top; not trickling down.  For most people, this would have been a no-brainer; but for conservatives (even the rank and file) it is the stuff of life.  I can talk to any conservative today, and he will tell me that trickle down economics not only works, but has been proven to work by the stats.  He’ll continue that line of reasoning until I show him the real stats; especially the fact that his boss is making five hundred times more than he is.  He’ll defend that stat by telling me that there are more, higher paying jobs available now that at any time in our history; until I show him that the Bush-era lost three million jobs and they’ve never come back, that wages have been stagnant at best for the last fifteen years, and are diminishing when compared to inflation at worst.

In Conclusion:

The facts do not lie; conservatism, or as I called it earlier, Corporatism, does not work.  It’s not just one part of it that isn’t working, it’s all of it put together.  In truth, some conservative principles would work fine with our system of free enterprise.  I believe that there really does need to be incentive for businesses to hire in economic downturns, and sometimes, tax cuts help.  I believe that small businesses should receive greater tax breaks than large corporations, considering the fact that it is the small business sector that historically creates sixty percent of the new jobs coming out of a recession.  But conservatives want to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, who over the last ten years, have created zero jobs.  Yes, you read that correctly; job growth since the Bush tax cuts has been negative, not positive; so the tax cuts have had a zero, or negative impact on American job creation.  Since they didn’t work, and cost our country trillions in new debt due to lost revenue, it’s time to do the smart thing, and end them.

From supply side to deregulation, from tax cuts for corporations that ship American jobs overseas to the race to the bottom, conservatism does not work.  It’s not real conservatism, anyway.  Real conservatism looks more like the Libertarian party.  The brand of Republicans calling themselves fiscal conservatives today aren’t conservatives at all; they’re Corporatists, and their every word and act reveals this.  Against extending unemployment benefits that add $30 Billion to the deficit, but for extending the Bush tax cuts that add nearly $1 Trillion to the deficit..every year.  That’s right; if we ended the Bush tax cuts today, our actual deficit would be somewhere around $600 Billion, and all of the Bush years would have seen budget surplusses.

How’s that for conservative economics?

America needs to reverse this corporatist-conservative train immediately.  Free trade needs to end.  Regulation needs to force the snakes into the open where they can be stomped on.  The Bush tax cuts need to be allowed to sunset.  Small businesses need to be able to get decent credit on decent terms instead of allowing the Mega Banks to deny them access.  Tax tarriffs on American companies who ship jobs overseas need to be implemented, and protections that allow the American worker to compete with the rest of the world must be re-implemented.  Economic growth happens from the bottom up.  That’s an undisputed fact.  No one spends more moeny than middle-class America, who are no where near the top of the “trickle-down” pyramid.

In the end, that’s what corporatist-conservatism became; a giant pyramid scheme.  It’s time to nuke that pyramid.  We don’t have much time.     Ω

Share

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 16 Comments »

Republican Or Democrat Does Not Equal “Choice” At The Polls

Posted by politicalpartypooper on July 7, 2010

We all have numerous choices in America.  It’s one of the trademarks of a Capitalistic society.  Grocery stores confuse me and I tend to stay out of department stores for fear of getting lost.  If I visit Amazon.com or any one of thousands of online stores (millions?) I’m struck by the plethora of choices I face.

So why is it that when I vote in America, I’m dumbfounded by the lack of choice?

Let’s see; I can choose a Democrat…or a Republican…a Democrat…or a Republican…a Democrat…or a Republican.

Some choice.  It’s like voting for the devil or his twin brother.  And always it makes me feel discouraged, as if knowing that neither choice will bring the change I hope for locally and in Washington.  I’ll be forty-three years old on Wednesday, July 14th, and having voted for twenty-five years, I come to find that I’ve never  voted for anyone I thought was a good choice.

Sure, I voted for President Obama like so many other people, but not because he was a Democrat…like so many other people.  For me, it was because he seemed more of an Independent than a Democrat, while McCain just seemed old.  I come to find out that he really is a Democrat; complete with all of the trappings of that party.  Got a crisis?  He asks himself, “what would a Democrat do?”  Recession?  What would a Democrat do?  War?  What would a Democrat do?

It turns out, Democrats aren’t much different from Republicans.  Sure, their ideologies are worlds apart, but the way they actually govern isn’t.  In practical terms, there’s only one ideology that governs in Washington; Incumbency.

It’s more than just an individual thing, too.  If that were all it were, I wouldn’t feel so cheated at the poll.  One man’s ideology is his right, and in many cases, can be honorable.  But a political party’s ideology?  That’s a different thing.  When a mass of humanity clusters, and then jostles for power collectively, their opponents become enemies.  And every seat of power becomes something to win and then to hold on to, as if owned.  Along the way, the issues of our day meet the differing ideologies, and often become secondary to the struggle for power.

Such is the state of our union; this glorious union of the States of America.

The state of our union is corrupt; dominated by two political parties who weren’t even in existence when our Constitution was written.  Those two parties are almost wholly funded by Corporate or special interests; many of those even foreign interests.  It’s become so bad in these last years that in a decision between special interests and the interests of the citizens of America, special interests always win.  It doesn’t matter whether Democrats or Republicans are in power; if there is legislation to be written, Las Vegas bets that Corporate and Special interests will be favored.  If indeed there were a “line” on the legislation, the odds for special interests or corporate interests would be two-to-one while the odds against normal citizens would be 50:1.  That’s what money buys you, and money owns and operates Democrats and Republicans.

So when I vote this fall for a governor, a senator, and a congressional seat, I’ll be choosing between two parties who really only represent one interest; the corporations or special interests who gave the most money.  Sure, if I had a billion dollars to give these folks I could buy legislation, too.  But that’s not the way our system is supposed to work!

I’m supposed to have choices!  This is America, for God’s sake!  But time after time, the choice I’m left with is (R) or (D).  Like I said, some choice.

It’s not a choice.  It has the illusion of choice, but it’s not really a choice.  If it were, we might be able to trust a politician when he says he’s an outsider and he’ll change things.  But when I look at that guy and see a (D) or an (R) behind his name, I know that no change is coming.  That guy is a Democrat, or a Republican.  If you think he’s suddenly going to have new ideas and new values, you are crazy.  I’ve been watching these guys for twenty-five years.  I’ve been waiting for the guy who actually carried the mantel that went with the words for that long.  I’ve heard it all.  I’ve heard all of the “I’m different!” speeches that I care to.  I heard the first words out President Obama’s mouth the night he won the White House, “Change has come to America!”

No, it hasn’t.  I knew then that it hadn’t.  I liked the guy, but I knew then that change was at least another four years away, and probably a lot longer than that.

You see, it’s as I said.  I’ve heard all of the speeches.  In 2000, George W. Bush ran as a Washington outsider. In 1992, it was Bill Clinton.  In 1980, it was Reagan. And on and on and on.  Change?  Washington isn’t the problem.

It’s the two political parties that are.  It’s these two massive corporations that recycle the same, tired rhetoric year after year, election after election.  “Vote for me!  I’m different!  I’ll bring change to Washington!” (R)

“Vote for me!  I’ll change the way Washington operates!”  (D)

See?  That’s not a choice.  It’s the same thing.  It’s two massive corporations controlling every aspect of America, and each one is determined to have you believe that they will change what’s wrong in Washington.  There’s nothing so wrong in Washington that a well placed tactical nuke hitting both party conventions couldn’t solve in an instant.

Did I say that out loud?  May it never happen, because in America, we don’t solve problems that way.  We solve them at the polls.  Which leads me to the point of this entire article.

What America needs is not a third party.  Sorry Tea Party, but you are Republican Lite.  We need another one of those like we need a Second Great Depression.

What America needs is a new, yet old, philosophy.  We need to start anew the idea that we can govern ourselves without the help of political parties or a ruling class.  That’s what political parties are, you know; a ruling elite, without whom America would be lost; or so they would have us believe.

I find great solace in the fact that America won its independence and wrote its original constitution entirely without the help of a political party, or a class of ruling elite.  Farmers, doctors, business men, soldiers, and inventors wrote our constitution.  The self-made and the self-educated partook in the process.  Today, our process is dominated by cookie-cutter, inside-of-the-box,  centuries-old, obsolete ideology, and by money.  It’s time to change that.

If you want change, you aren’t going to find it with an (R) or a (D) behind its name.  That means you probably won’t find it this fall.  Sure, Republicans hope to win huge victories this November, but those victories won’t represent change for you and me; only change for the party elite.  Even regular Americans who support the Republicans cannot realistically expect anything to change in Washington after the elections.  That’s because you can’t clean a baby with dirty bath water, and the bath water in Washington is completely polluted by Republicans and Democrats.  They are part of the problem; one with it, in essence.  Expecting them to change it in a way that favors American citizens who don’t contribute to their campaigns is like asking the mafia to police themselves.

If you want change, you are going to bring it about yourself.  Look within yourself; look within your neighborhoods and your towns.  And for God’s sake, don’t look within the two parties.  Find an Independent, or become one.  Run for office Independently.  Do it locally, or, if you can get the funding, do it nationally.  Change won’t come easily, and it won’t come all at once.  But it won’t come at all if we keep making the same choices we’ve always made.

It turns out, those choices weren’t really choices at all.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 4 Comments »

Barney Frank Sells America Out Again.

Posted by politicalpartypooper on June 24, 2010

Barney Frank, henceforth to be known as Elmer Fudd, is trying his best to grenade any meaningful derivatives reform from his seat as the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.  Here’s why:  In 2010, he has received $127,800 from the Securities and Investment sector.  That money was meant to buy something, and now we know what.

Barney Frank, you are a despicable, miserable excuse for a human being.  From someone who knows the derivatives sector, and knows that meaningful regulation is necessary in order to avoid yet another Wall Street bailout, I’m telling anyone who reads this blog that what Frank has proposed will guarantee that banks will continue to hide behind the government when they make large bets that they suddenly can’t cover.

Atta boy Barney Frank!  Congratulations on selling real Americans out yet again.  You’ll win the Oscar this year for sure for your FAKE anger at Wall Street in 2008.  Now go and take your fake anger and your fake compassion and shove it.  When America has friends like you, who needs traitors?     Ω

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Political Partageddon

Posted by politicalpartypooper on April 25, 2010

A while back, I wrote an article about Primary elections.  As a follow up, I have some news about Primaries, as well as some encouraging stats for Independents.

Proposition 14 in California, a referendum that would allow Indies to vote in statewide primary elections, is coming up.   Since Primary elections are primarily for the selection of party candidates, the debate has been long and vitriolic over whether to pass it or not.  Here’s what the bill would actually provide:

If Proposition 14 passes, Californians will still participate in two-stage elections. But instead of a party primary, the first stage would be a contest in which candidates from any party — or no party — could participate. The top two finishers in the first stage, even if they are from the same party, would move to a runoff election, and the winner of that election would get the office. Races for Congress, the Legislature and statewide offices would all be governed by the new rules; those for local offices and the presidency would not.  LA Times

It’s a small step in the right direction.  Nevertheless, even as it is debated, Republican and Democratic Party officials are screaming like the evil terminator at the end of Terminator 2 as he melts.  You can imagine the rhetoric.  “It will be the end of days!  Or at least the end of political party’s!”

Political Partageddon.

YOU READ IT HERE FIRST!

Basically, what Prop 14 does is allow Indies to run as candidates in the primaries against the Republican or Democratic candidates.  It makes taxpayer funding of Primaries more palatable.  Prior to this, Indies were stuck with paying for Primary elections that they had no part in.  Talk about controlling government!  Let’s get the rest of this done, and get every state on board with free and open elections for all.  The hoops that some state’s election boards put a candidate through are ridiculous, especially if that candidate is a third-party or Indie candidate.  It’s time to break up the cartel, boys and girls!

Finally, an article from The Collegian states:

Young Americans are opting not to affiliate with a political party.

Fully 50 percent of voters aged 18-29 now identify as independents, and the percentage of the electorate under 30 is growing. In 2006, 18-29 year olds accounted for 21 percent of the electorate. By 2015, estimates are that 18-29 year olds will account for 33 percent of all voters.

But the millennial generation finds itself confronted by an electoral system designed by, and for, the “I Like Ike” crowd. Party politics dominates. Election districts are gerrymandered to serve party interests. Many states require poll workers to be registered Democratic or Republican. The Federal Election Commission is comprised of three Democrats and three Republicans, rendering it both structurally impotent and blind to the concerns of independents. And most significantly, primary elections are off-limits to independents in 17 states.

Did you read that?  Primary elections are off-limits to Indies in seventeen states?  But Republicans and Democrats will steal their tax dollars to pay for their primaries, won’t they?  Blood suckers.

The good news is, more and more voters are choosing to go Indie.

Can you hear it?  It’s off, in the distance…a tolling.

It’s getting louder, and soon, the Republicans and Democrats will hear it, too.  They will hear it, and they will recognize it; after all, it’s the bell that rings for them, the death knell of corrupt political parties.  One day, and I believe it to be soon, being a member of a political party will be as poisonous to a candidate as belonging to the KKK.

With the most recent financial disaster, and another one looming on the horizon, more and more information is coming out about how members of both parties played a hand in sculpting the system that made it all possible.

More than 40% of Americans already identify themselves as Indies.  It won’t be long now…dong…..dong…..dong….

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

In Which I Take On the Liberal Racist Accusation Machine

Posted by politicalpartypooper on April 24, 2010

My blogging friend Bob Cesca has a post up at his site, where in essence, and mistakenly, I believe, he accuses the Conservative Base of America to be racist.  Here is the comment I left for him.  I don’t know why I bother.  I’m probably going to called “racist” by a dozen people who are almost totally focused on using color as a weapon but somehow don’t see that as racism.

My point?  Until we see the human race as one race, there isn’t an American in existence who can’t be called racist. But, you know what?  They probably won’t see things that way.  Who am I to hope I’ll convince anyone?

“It goes without saying, however, that advancing whiteness and repressing brownness are aren’t mutually exclusive and are equally about race. “

Does it go without saying, then, that advancing brownness is also about racism?

As I said last week, this is a lazy, disingenuous approach to a much deeper set of issues.

Now, I understand some of it; I understand that there are some for whom the “change” in America is definitely about their racist tendencies and phobias. But to say it about the “Conservative base” (your words, not mine) is akin to saying that all liberals are uneducated and on welfare and only want to live off of government entitlements. (if you don’t know this, it is what conservatives think of liberals)  Nothing could be further from the truth, but there it is; it’s an accusation that is based on what liberals say and fight for, even though you fight for far more than just this.

I also said last week that I agree with Eric Holder; that America doesn’t have the balls to have a discussion about race, as in, America doesn’t have the balls to have a TWO-SIDED discussion about race.  It’s all one sided; with Liberals pointing the fingers at white conservatives time after time at the drop of a hat.  You have some white people in America afraid to open their mouths at all for fear of being called “racist” no matter what they say.

I’m independent; I hold some liberal views and some conservative.  I’m white.  Am I racist, too?  Am I racist because I just said that I’m not blind enough to ignore that the race discussion in America, if such a thing even exists, all flows one way?

Sometimes I think of myself as an outsider to this entire discussion, and I see that in certain segments, the liberals have valid points.  But I also see that in some segments, conservatives have valid points.  This is the danger with swallowing a political ideology hook, line, and sinker.  Ideology knows no limits, no restraints.  With ideology, a group of people is either all one way, or all another…nothing in between.  There can be no safe middle ground, for to allow such a middle ground is to lose the war on message.  And what is your message?  That all of conservative America is racist.  You don’t have to say the word “all” for people to get your meaning.

That’s why many people are afraid to say anything.  Well, I’ll say it.  You can call me racist until you are blue in the face if it suits you.  Here it is:

Until you are willing to have an honest discussion about race in America, no discussion will take place at all.  Personally, I think you and many liberals like it that way.  It’s far more easy to cry “Racism” than it is to have an actual honest dialogue about it.  Why would you want to change anything when “Racism” works so well?  Why would you want to form the landscape of America in equality when instead, you can stir up the masses in anger or fear (dependent upon whether you’re liberal or conservative)?  The truth is, you like things this way.  It’s convenient.  It wins votes.  It makes the Democrats the party of the minorities.  Yet from personal observation, I see no difference.

Liberals are more comfortable handing out condoms or providing abortions to brown people than they are with actually helping them and working with them to improve their personal situations.  Hand them a box of rubbers, give them a welfare check and hope you never see them again.  Doesn’t that make you feel all “Christiany”?

To a liberal, from my observation, a “brown person” isn’t a person at all.  He’s a focus group.  He’s a bloc of votes.  He’s a means to an end.  The brown person in liberal America is always poor, always uneducated, and always persecuted.  But this is somehow not racism.

Getting to the point, to a liberal, a brown person is a reason, an excuse to forward the entire liberal agenda.  When you speak of “brown people”, you do not see individuals. The language you use proves this beyond doubt.   You see a focus group.  I call it out as I see it, and as I see it, that is the worst sort of racism there is.  In the guise of helping your brown “friends”, you are actually making things worse for them.

You are trying to legislate what can only be taught at home.  Race relations start at the family level, not at the Federal level.  It begins one-on-one, not on MSNBC or CNN with two sides shouting at each other, or in the columns of the print media, or on the screens that view the internet.

You have it backwards.  You are keeping it backwards.  You like it that way.  Racism.

I’m a racist, you’re a racist, everybody in America is a racist.  What have we accomplished?  Precisely nothing.  For all of your shouting, all of your finger pointing, all of your rhetoric, you have accomplished nothing.   Despite the growing number of Federal programs or Federal mandates, race in America is still about dividing people according to color.  That’s a liberal accomplishment, Bob.  It’s also a worthless one.  We’re not supposed to be dividing ourselves; we’re supposed to be uniting ourselves.

Angry, finger-pointing rhetoric never accomplishes something positive.  Haven’t you learned this life-lesson yet?  Why should you?  Why, when “racism” works so well for liberals?

If you want to change America, change yourself.  If you want to change “race” relations in America, change yourself.  Stop shouting “racism”, and get your hands dirty.  Stop viewing people of color as a divided group, as a separate group of Americans, as a focus group.  Start seeing the individual, instead of the crowd.

I know, I know.  The crowd gives you more votes.  But, if you really want to change things, it won’t be about votes; it will be because your heart breaks when you walk a mile in your brown friend’s shoes and you suddenly see this person as a human being for the first time.  Bob, most people (liberals included) don’t even do this for their “white” friends.  How are you ever going to do it for your brown ones?  If you can’t stop yourself and feel the emotions of your neighbor, think the thoughts they are thinking, and listen to the inner dialogue they are having inside, the same dialogue you have inside, how are you ever going to see them as  human?

If you can cry out “racist”, and label the entire conservative base as racist, you merely prove that you do not see groups of people as individual human beings.  Until you do, you are as racist as the people you accuse.

I realize that viewing yourself in this mirror won’t be pleasant, and your natural tendency might be to respond equally as unpleasantly.  Like I said, call me a racist if you have to, but between you and I, we both know the truth.  Your accusation isn’t truth; it’s just another false accusation.  If it makes you feel better to say it, then go ahead.  I won’t hold it against you.

Before you do, however, I ask that you do me a favor.  I ask that for five minutes, you pay attention to your own inner dialogue, and your own thoughts.  I ask you to count how many of those thoughts weren’t about you, and of those thoughts not about you, how many weren’t in relation to you.  The answer will more than likely be zero, if you are human.  What does that have to do with race?

If you can’t stop thinking about yourself for five minutes, how on earth can you claim to not be racist?  How on earth can you claim some higher moral ground, when your every thought is about yourself?  It’s a conundrum, I admit.  It’s a problem we ALL face, every single member of the human race.  But it is the most essential of all human qualities; that we are all, at our most basic level, almost totally selfish.

Liberals and Conservatives alike share this trait.  And yet we point our fingers at each other as if we somehow have moved beyond basic human nature, and left our white conservative friends back in the days of Kunta Kinte.  It’s not true.  You are, at your foundation, concerned almost totally with yourself.  We all are.

Let’s start there.  Let’s start our race discussions right there.  That’s where discussions like this belong, at the most basic human levels.  What good is it to love one group of people and hate another?  In reality, when you face the truth, you can see that dividing America according to color is something that both sides are guilty of.  But doesn’t the individual inside of you want to see things differently?  Your words tell me that you want to see yourself as a kind, loving man, to whom color makes no difference.  You’re not there yet, Bob.  You’re still using color as a weapon.  That sort of behavior dehumanizes the very people you want to help, if you really do want to help them.

At some point, America has to learn that when it comes to race, there is no black, white, red, yellow or brown.  There is only the human race, and we are all bound by common traits, common dreams, and common hopes.  At the macro level, you can’t get there.  But that’s where most liberals are.  It’s not pretty, but I thought it was about time someone told you the truth.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 6 Comments »

The Washington Spin Game is Designed to Mislead Americans

Posted by politicalpartypooper on March 3, 2010

Democrats are calling the Reconciliation procedure they will use to finalize their health care reform bill a  “Simple Majority”.  Republicans are calling it the “Nuclear Option”.  Neither is correct.  A simple majority is how Congress passes legislation, because they have no filibuster rule.  The Senate uses a simple majority only once they have voted to end debate, which requires sixty votes.  Reconciliation is a budgetary amendment process, and the “Nuclear Option” has never been used, but would change Senate rules, making filibusters illegal in the Senate.

These are just the most recent examples of the spin game that is played in Washington.  My God, to write a comprehensive list of all the spin coming out of Washington in the last five years would take five years.  I recall the days of “warmongers”, “tax-and-spenders”, “racists”, and “bleeding-heart liberals”.  These are the names Democrats and Republicans give to each other.  None of them are wholly true, and some of them are patently false.  But, they seem to develop a life of their own after a while.

Just this last summer, we were privy to all sorts of spin, like “death panels”, “socialized medicine”, “corporate shill”, and recently, “Wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry”.  Oh, yeah!  Don’t forget the “government TAKEOVER of health care!”.  In fact, this health care debate has put the spin of the two parties into sharper focus than ever, misleading more Americans than ever, and causing greater division than ever.  Again, so much of it is just made-up spin, designed to make one side’s efforts appear saintly and the other side’s appear hellish.

Who is the victim in all of this?  It is the American citizen, most of whom do not have the time or maybe the inclination to follow the legislative process closely, and who rely on soundbites and the mainstream media for their daily news brief.  People who get their news only from the MSM are inundated with spin and almost nothing more.  Talk Radio, MSNBC, and Fox News are about as partisan as you can get, and relying on these sources alone will lead just about any citizen to know about a quarter of the truth, and the rest will be  spin-related garbage.

Spin is very robust, too, and it grows within a culture.  It’s difficult for me to find a discussion where spin is not present; usually the person I am talking with will revert to Party talking points (spin), and then I spend ninety-nine percent of the time disproving those spin-induced points.  This happens on both sides, but the trouble is, there is more than two sides to America.  We aren’t a Republican nation, nor are we a Democratic nation.  We aren’t even a right-leaning or left leaning nation.  Most people I know have conflicting views about a great many issues.  One person may be pro-gun but also pro-choice, while another might be the opposite.  The only constant is that both Parties would say “that’s impossible, you can’t be pro-gun and pro-choice at the same time!”  Wanna bet?  I know people who are.

This spin game has caused, and is causing an irreparable rift in America.  The Right and Left are at opposite poles (and seem to like it there), and the struggle is for everyone in the middle, where incidentally, most Americans reside.  Where else would you put someone who was pro-gun and pro-choice, or anti-socialism and pro-social security?  The national conversation has devolved into a dysfunctional family holiday, where the two sides shout as loudly as they can without solving a single thing.  Usually, it is the people stuck in between that get hurt.

It’s hard to discover the truth when the party you support uses terminology like “wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry” or “socialist”.  That’s because this type of language is designed to grab your attention and make you afraid of the other side.  In the health care debate, the Republicans have used death panels, socialized medicine, government takeover and a whole host of phrases designed to scare a freedom- loving people.  Democrats have used words like obstructionist, corporate shill, and fascist to scare their base and the middle.

What bothers me the most is when citizens start using this crap.  Especially against me, because I know it’s crap.  American ought to know it’s crap, too, good for nothing but causing arguments and misleading people.  Spin that uses words to hide the negative aspects of legislation or methods is just as heinous.  In the end, it’s all used to distract people from the truth, something that America is lacking, and I blame our politicians for this, but also the media, who plays right along, because dysfunctionality sells.

If you want to debate me, get rid of the spin, or I’ll use my spin on you, and we’ll get nowhere.  I’m not a socialist and you are not a fascist.  I’m not a corporate schill and you are not a commie.  Can we at least start there?  Do you realize that the person you are debating is the same as you?  That this person has an internal conversation going on just like you?  That calling him stupid hurts him, just as him calling you an ass hurts you?  Where does it get you?  Tell me…where?

Don’t follow the examples of our leaders, who should have that title stripped from them until they grow up.  It’s time that the grown ups, America’s citizens, spanked our elected officials and told them to behave.  Telling half-truths or spin is the same as lying.

At least, that’s what we teach our kids.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

The Will of the Parties Outweighs the Will of the People

Posted by politicalpartypooper on February 18, 2010

Political Party Pooper is a blog dedicated to the independence of Americans, to restoring our local and Federal governments to a process that represents the will of the People, rather than the will of a Party; and finally, as what was once considered an impossible goal, to the elimination of political parties in America.  Having spent eighteen months writing this blog, and having been forced to pay more attention to politics than anyone should be forced to, I have come to the conclusion that now, more than ever, real independent change is possible in America.

An up-to-date view of Washington politics shows us once again facing gridlock with nearly every piece of legislation; especially those that mean the most to Americans.  Health Care Reform, a Jobs Bill, and Wall Street Regulation Reform have all been on the table for months.  None of them are finished, and two of them appear to be all but dead.  Democrats had a super-majority in both houses, and have failed to overcome the Republican minoramajority.  Washington is frozen in partisan conflict, and the menu for working and out-of-work Americans has been a decade of lies and screaming across the aisles that has accomplished nothing of significance.

In 1994, President Clinton’s Healthcare bill failed.  Then Republican-leader Senator Dole swore by the hair on his toes that Republicans, if given a majority in Congress, would work with Democrats to pass meaningful health care reform.  Flash forward to 2010, sixteen years later, and we see how that worked.  No health care bill, and no attempt at it, either…until 2009.  Again, we see Democrats trying to finish a bill, and Republicans promising to help if only the Democrats will tear up what they already have, and start over.  Are Democrats really considering this?  Maybe, maybe not.  It doesn’t matter.  What does matter is that Washington is frozen, and the two parties are guilty.

George Washington, in his Farewell Letter to America, dedicated nearly a quarter of his address to the dangers of political parties.

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

“They serve to organize faction…to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party.”  Ah, George, George, George…if only we had listened to you.  Having read Washington’s address numerous times, I am astounded by his foresight.  Everything he warned us about political parties has come to pass.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection.

Okay, George, now you’re just showing off.  But how could you have known exactly what political parties would do to American government?  How could you have known that in a battle for power, two opposing parties would lie about the other, distort the truth with false alarms and agitate the community?

A better question would be; How could we have not known?  When in the race for power, and that of a kind which is “freely” given by the popular mandate of the people, is there any question as to the lengths that a political party would go to gain such power?  Would that Party lie about the methods and motives of any opponent?  Would a Party create diversions to turn the American consciousness away from the truth?  Would any such Party fight and scratch, and bribe its way into power?  Would that Party use any means at its disposal to either gain, or retain, the power that “represents” the mandate of the people?  Would a Political Party obstruct needed reform, and resort to the meanest schemes in order to destroy any legislation which disagreed with its core principles?  Would two political parties usurp the will of the people so effectively as to create a system whereby the highest bidder was able to purchase legislation benefiting the smallest of concerns?

All of these questions have already been answered.  They are answered day by day in Washington.  What our first President warned us against, which in essence is rule by despotism, is the same rule he went to the field of battle to defeat for all Americans.  After our Founding Fathers battled and defeated the King who was an ocean away, two political parties right in our backyard have quietly and easily established a new despotic rule.  America, freed once from the mad reign of a King, is now ruled by two  mad kings.

Each King claims that in electoral victory, they have the mandate of the people, all of the people; when in truth, the only mandate they rule by is their own strict ideology, exactly like the rule of a dictator or a king.  America is as subdued and oppressed by despotism today as we were in 1776, only our two kings swear by the almighty God that they rule according to will of the people, and always in protecting our freedom.

It is not the issues at hand in Washington that expose this despotism.  Health Care Reform, Jobs bills, Civil Rights, Social Security…none of these issues indicate the type of government America has.  Rather, the kind of government we are under is revealed in the language and methods used by the two parties to either support or obstruct these issues.  No one issue is a trademark issue for an entire nation; using one issue as the example for what type of government America is ruled under is false, because issues change.  What does not change is the rhetoric and the methods of the  two parties, and so by their inflexibilities will we recognize the despots that have usurped the will of the people.

It is that very inflexibility which has created an environment in Washington where issues no longer dictate our path; instead, our path is dictated by the ideology of one faction or another, and neither ideology truly represents the actual will of the people.  These two factions are engaged in a duel to the death; the spoils are the will of the people, and no weapon or method is too horrible to employ when power of this sort is available to be concentrated into the hands of the very few.  America is today ruled by two kings more despotic than the King we defeated to earn our freedom.  King Republican and King Democrat have America in a death grip, and we cycle back and forth between opposing ideologies that do not fairly represent our will.  For it is now and has always been our will, above all, to be free of this kind of ineffective and unrepresentative tyranny.

George Washington foresaw the very state that we find ourselves in.  America is factioned; divided by two Parties whose overreaching goal has always been to subvert the will of the people, bending it to obey the will of the party.  Neither party enjoys even close to fifty percent approval of the People.  And yet, if a Party wins an election, their will is forced down the throats of the People as surely as if they were King, and their will were divine.  We do not live in a Representative Democracy.  We live in a two king Government; one that is almost completely deaf to the will of the people, to the needs of the masses, and to the freedom that our Constitution guaranteed us.  That Government, of the Party, by the Party, and for the Party, has failed, not because the will of the people was not clear; but because the will of both parties was to destroy each other, eliminate opposition, and rule according the Party’s strict ideology.  In all of this, the will of the people is barely remembered…useful to both parties now as merely a sound byte.

The one question of our time, the question the People must answer is; will we go quietly into this dark night of despotism?


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Pass That Wall Street Peace Pipe, Senator Dodd

Posted by politicalpartypooper on February 6, 2010

It has been over a year since the dark days before the 2008 Presidential Election, when Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke came to us with a “little problem”.  That problem caused John McCain to “suspend” his campaign, and rush back to Washington, so he could help Barack Obama and the Democratic Senate give money to AIG and “Banks Too Big To Fail”.  There was fear, there was outrage, and there was genuine concern about the American Economy diving head first into another Great Depression.  But praise be to Allah, that catastrophe was avoided by TARP, a name that even today, is fitting for what it covered up.  AIG and the Big, Big, Big Banks were bailed out of the mess they created, and all Americans could rest assured that our Congress would speed legislation through that ensured this could never happen again.

Fast forward to the present, and to a Democratic Congress and Senate with an overwhelming majority.  It’s one year later, and we still haven’t fixed what caused our financial meltdown.  We’ve heard much rhetoric, and a litany of “We ought to’s”, but to date, none of those are close to the finish line.  But Democratic Senator Chris Dodd has something to say about that.

Senator Chris Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, scolded Wall Street representatives at a hearing Thursday for sending “an army of lobbyists whose only mission is to kill the common-sense financial reforms” needed by the public. “The fact is,” Dodd said, “I am frustrated, and so are the American people.” He charged that Wall Street’s intransigence was the reason for Congress’s failure to pass any bill to regulate the Street. “The refusal of large financial firms to work constructively with Congress on this effort borders on insulting to the American people who have lost so much in this crisis.”  Robert Reich, HuffPost

Ahh, so there you have it.  The failure of the Senate to pass any meaningful Regulation Reform is because Wall Street has an army of lobbyists.

God Damn you, Wall Street.  God Damn you to the everlasting fires of burning Hell!

Where was I?

Oh, yeah.  No meaningful reform passed by Chris Dodd’s Senate because of all those pesky Wall Street lobbyists.  Which leads to the next, most logical question:  Ummmmmm, Chris?  Who are those Wall Street Lobbyists lobbying, anyway?

Could it…

be…

You??!!!

Next most logical question:  Is Wall Street threatening to stop giving you money if you pass Regulation, Chris?  Because, see, if that’s all it is, then you shouldn’t have any problem with this, right?  Cuz we’ve already damned Wall Street to hell, right?  It’s full speed ahead with the Regulation bill, damn the torpedoes, and God save the queen and all that, right?

Right, Chris?

What am I missing?

Oh!  You WANT that Wall Street money for YOUR campaign!  Well, why didn’t you just say that in the first place?  We can fix that easily.  Just negotiate with Wall Street, because of all their legislative power and their super-majority in both Houses, water down a bill with garbage and pork, and pass it, right?

Problem…

Solved?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

AMERICANS DO NOT WANT REPUBLICANS BACK IN POWER, BY A VAST MAJORITY

Posted by politicalpartypooper on January 27, 2010

Being that I am driven by politics and what people think of it, I couldn’t help myself recently, when I decided to take a very informal poll.

WARNING!!!!!:  This poll is an unprofessional and unfunded one question survey of my family, friends, acquaintances and clients.  It is in no way representative of all Americans, but is based on a very wide range of political views, religious views, and includes people from every level of wealth, including one homeless person, who managed to wrangle a Ten from me for his trouble.  Admittedly, the poll was weighted heavily by small business owners and the affluent, as they make up the majority of my clientele.

So, I concluded this survey a little over a week ago, but had not published the results due to the exciting and mysterious amount of weird, special, breaking news over the last ten days.

Two hundred people were each asked one simple question; “Given the state of the economy and of current policy and failures in Washington, it is clear that Democrats will lose seats in Congress and the Senate this fall.  Do you want Republicans back in power in Washington?”

Overwhelmingly, the answer was, “NO!”

Let’s break it down: In a straight look at the numbers, 136 out of 200 people answered “no”.  That’s sixty-eight percent.  Of the 200 people asked the question, 111 were male, 89 were female.  Amongst the male population, seventy-one  said “no” while forty said “yes”.  Sixty-five out of eighty-nine women said they did not want Republicans back in power in Washington.  Amongst small business owners, male and female combined, there were 128 respondents.  Eighty-nine of those said they did not want Republicans back in power, which represents sixty-nine percent.

When age comes into play, here is how it broke down:  Of two hundred people asked the question, 123 were aged forty and above.  Seventy-five of those said “no”, meaning Republicans get a favorable response about thirty-nine percent of the time.  Those aged thirty-nine or less responded negatively at a seventy-nine percent clip.  Seventy-nine percent!

As I said earlier, this poll is in no way an official poll, but I suspect that if one of the many polling groups were to take over from here, and ask a broader range of people, the numbers would not be all that different.

Incidentally, when I asked my seventeen- year- old daughter if she wanted the Republicans back in power, she said, “Huh?”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 2 Comments »