I have been doing some thinking. I know that is dangerous and maybe the pain pills have run me off kilter but here are my conclusions.
The United States has been run by the rich and powerful ever since its conception. George Washington was a rich and powerful man and so has every president been since. One has to be rich to run for the office and must have a lot of power either behind him or her or of his (I use the generic masculine to include any person regardless of sex) own right.
Only the independantly wealthy can take the time to represent "we the people" in any capacity, be it Senitor or Representative or even president. Therefore the country has been directed by the rich and powerful for better than 200 years. They have done nothing but become even more rich and powerful. Why would they want to change it?
I hear and read talk of Bilderburg and other organizations and can find no reason for them to want to change the statis quo. Those folks are making more money than they can count now and always will. They have more power than anyone else so why change it?
I don't infer that the only reason they run for office is money or power. I believe many if not most really have the interests of the country at heart and want to keep this nation strong and as is. Public service motivates them more than anything else in most cases. Of course they make a lot of mistakes but there are many way to correct them built into our law if they will use them.
That is my opinion.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 59
you can't keep the poor so down for long
There is a lot of unrest
The thing with George Washington that may be different from most any other man or American was that when offered a crown, he refused it, and when he played his part, he packed up and left back home. Very few men have done that and ruled well
We also have a convoluted and highly evolved psychological mythology in the modern world that has made democracy impossible and irrelevant.
People who did not like what happens when there are too many people, and too much politics used to have a place to go or the power to do something about it. I think that is not the case any more.
Allen's book posits that the GOGs worked to 1) create an income tax to extort the common man (DONE) 2) create a central bank (DONE a la Federal Reserve) & 3) Have this bank as holder of the national debt (DONE - with Congress consent) 4) Run the national debt up (DONE to the tune of trillions now as opposed to barely 100 billion when the book was written)
Oh yeah - they shore nuff have the interest of the country at heart as they reap zillions off of the interest alone on the national debt.
It's time to post (if again, again) the "Fourteen Signposts to Slavery"
I say let her have that open Senate seat...
The rich have always had an edge towards gaining political positions. They usually have a wider familiarity among the voting public, they have more resources for running for an office, they often have the highest education level and they have likely traveled to foreign countries. These things often make them better candidates than any common person.
This was especially true in the early days of our nation.
Sadly, once elected, they do tend to look after their own personal ideas, ideals and goals rather than keeping the major focus on the needs and wants of their constituents.
I would say that the best public servants from the rich quarter are those who seek to serve the public good out of desire to leave some kind of shining legacy that will live on long after the individual has left this mortal coil.
The worst public servants from the rich quarter are those that seek position only for the sake of increasing or easing their little economic worlds; such as the business man who seeks office so he can repeal a law that interferes with his money making abilities. These folk are a pariah.
Anyone smart enough to make a good President would almost certainly be a successful person. But the Wealthy who are running things now are doing it from the shadows through proxies, like the current Puppet in Chief.
Every signatory of the Declaration of Independence was facing the gallows if the Revolution failed. Do the wealthy Plutocrats of today have the courage to pledge their "Lives, Fortunes, and Sacred Honor" to the nation? Can most of them even say "Honor" with a straight face?
Dick Cheney is no George Washington.
Steve, yes we have some who are as you say. We have some who are of the old school as well. The trick is to know which is which, "we the people" have not been too good at that the last few years.
"Every signatory of the Declaration of Independence was facing the gallows if the Revolution failed. Do the wealthy Plutocrats of today have the courage to pledge their "Lives, Fortunes, and Sacred Honor" to the nation?"
I give you a Standing Ovation !!!!!
When you go down that avenue of threat you end up doing exactly what the people who have brought our country down to this point ... and end up with Libertarianism ... which is what we have minus the regulation. In newspeak, regulation = democracy.
Colonel, you want to amp up Republicanism ot Libertarianism, and see democracy as a threat, but I see it the exact reverse. The more democracy this country has had, the better everyone has done.
This is one of those spurious concepts that throws people off the truth. The problem is not the fed, or the wealth, or the income tax, it is the continuous corruption of our common government that forces it to serve the wealth and pile more and more indignities on the working and middle class Americans, while demonizing them under the mantra and self-righteousness and superiority.
You might try learning what a democracy actually is. It is Not Socialism and it is not what the Democratic party is all about. The Democratic Party has never suggested that the nation become a Democracy. They do tend to introduce some Socialist ideas.
I did, referring to the likes of you and I, as opposed to those like her with so much money, they don't know what to with it. She would not benefit from being a politician, but from what I've read about her, she actually has your and my interests at heart.
Just my 2 cents...
Stu, I don't think she has any idea what a working person or retired person wants and/or needs. I could be wrong. One thing for sure she would be at the worst no different than Hillary.
(because that's what it sounds like you might be saying).
Picking nits about the word democracy is just silly. Sure, a pure democracy where every political decision is put to a vote of all the people is not a reality ... anywhere.
That's OK, I know you are just ranting so you can feel alive! Enjoy!
Socialism is the same as democracy, you are putting far too much energy into defintitions.
Nationalized/socialized/single-payer health care, whatever you want to call it will help the country and free enterprise to continue. If we had a social infrastructure, then we could make things much easier on businesses, and support people better, in short things would work, the country would be more productive, and businesses would have less hassles. There is no word for it, I am mostly concerned with things working, because they are not working now and no minor tweak that we can get from our REPRESENTATIVES is going to address the issues we have more than a bandaid and spray paint.
In a Democracy the people make all the decisions by voting on everything.
In a Socialist society the Government makes the decisions.
In a Republic The people make the decisions through elected representativs.
Three Distinct and seperate systems of government
If you don't even know which system we have here you have no idea how to fix what is going wrong or has gone wrong.
> you have no idea how to fix what is going wrong
> or has gone wrong.
Back at you grumpy, your definitions are not exactly
all inclusive or accurate.
My point is that as representatives we get bought
off hacks ... under your Republican system, it does
not work.
Oh, there are so many holes in what you said I
could slice it and put in a sandwich and call it
ham and swiss! ;-)
You seem to me to be confusing Democrat with Democracy and Republic with Republican.
MERRY CHRISTMAS, COLONEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And Colonel, Merry Christmas.
Mark, you are right and that is wrong in my book.
Merry Chistmas you too.
If that gets out, Pubs will have to stop calling Obama a "socialist" 8-)
LOL
(but then they will lose ONE of their smear campaign tactics !)
LOL 8-)
(are Puds truly stupid or just ignorant?)
LOL 8-)
There are Democrats, Republicans, and NeoCon Republican and Democrats. The Neo Cons have control at this time and we need to get rid of them. There is about as much difference between a Neo Con Republican and a Neo Con Democrat as there is between two different kinds of apple.
That word has to be out but the Neo Con Press will not print/broadcast the truth.
I guess most anything Bush did. I am hoping Obama introduces legislation to correct the Bush errors and assult on our Constitution. It may be in vain.
Selfish, greedy, self-righteous demagogues who get into office because of the self-centered, self-righteous fools who believe what the worst of those demagogues tell them...that's who runs this country.
Let's use our heads...if someone supports Socialist ideas, or Marxist ideas, or Liberal ideas, it should be easy enough to determine that they ARE. Now, apply that same logic to those who PRETEND to be "republicans."
Good God, LOOK SHARP, PEOPLE!!!
The problem is that it is an impossable dream at this point in history. The various governments and religions in the world will not allow it. Maybe in a thousand years or so but not now or in the foreseeable future.
If you want to support a "Republic"an ideal, then you should sit back and suck it up, because that is the representation you are going to get Colonel.
And yes, eventually whatever happens it will be a one world order ... I would just prefer to not be a product or a machine or an enemy is that order - instead preferring to be an equal citizen.
In the mean time I will stick with the Republic called the United States of America.
btw... has anyone seen the film I.O.U.S.A.? http://www.iousathemovie.com/
The same happened with banks. Some years ago a bank could not be interstate as in having branches in more than one state. Now they are not only interstate they are international. With that kind of power we encouraged the abuse thereof that we have today.