I've been writing this blog for over 6 years now under the title "The Public Is Revolting". For most of this time the public outcry was muffled in cyberspace in blogs like mine. But blogs are not that effective in getting change to happen because of the sheer number of writers and the difficulty of being chosen by the great Google decider. The people's voices need to be actually heard and it appears the time has come. People from all over America - in fact all over the world are taking to the street in protest of gross income equality, lack of jobs, corrupt politicians and corporate greed. The people are angry - very angry - and they are doing the only thing they feel they have the power to do - they are revolting. Many people watching this "Occupy" movement ask why the protesters are not marching in Washington in front of the politicians? There are several reasons for this - the largest of which is that government does not control wages (except the minimum) or employment benefits or bank fees, or most of the things this movement is about. But there is another reason why they are not specifically asking Washington for help. Washington has stopped. Literally stopped.
Two months ago today - in the comment section of this article, I made the following prediction:
"I predict the next two months will involve tons of tax payer money spent on another frivolous lawsuit (remember the Clintons?). I also predict we will still be bickering about the Presidents Jobs Bill because of GOP hostage taking and nothing will have been accomplished.
Nothing"
I wish I had been wrong. People are without work, losing their homes, losing their cars, some losing their lives while our elected officials hold our country hostage over tax breaks for the wealthy. This can't be allowed to continue.
Notice in the paragraph above I said "elected officials". We put those people in office. Usually the opposition between the two parties is a good thing because it creates a system of checks and balances. But in the mid-term election of 2010 something terrible happened - the Tea Party. It's not that the Tea Party candidates are not doing what they promised. The problem is that this obstruction is exactly what they promised to do. They signed pledges that they would not raise taxes under ANY circumstances. Well guess what - we have some very big circumstances and they are holding true to their pledges while America suffers.
In a two party system, compromise is not an option - it is required. Otherwise we have a one party system. Any elected official that signed a pledge not to compromise under any circumstances is not working under the established government of this country. They should have not been elected in the first place because their actions are unconstitutional. These officials either need to revoke their pledges and agree to compromise or should be removed from office immediately! Only then can our established system of government continue. In future elections any candidate that would sign such a pledge should be immediately disqualified. This is not how America works.
Until then the people will continue to revolt. We will not sit back and watch a government in stagnation while corporations send our jobs overseas. We will not allow bankers to steal our homes and our savings. We will not allow the burden of the economy to fall only on the working poor. We have numbers, we have power we have votes and we are revolting!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
56 comments:
While pursuing the issues, I found this comment perfect for this blog denbec...
"The two groups are fundamentally different in the fact that the TP wants capitalists to protect them from an overreaching government while OWS wants the government to protect them from overreaching capitalists."
I don't take credit except that I found it and believe it.
Lisa in Indy
Wow. That is exactly correct!
"This is not how America works."
Uh, yeah...this is exactly how America works,; how it has always worked; how it's founders designed and intended it to work.
Yesterday on Meet The Press, George Will summarized it nicely:
"This is a transaction cost of Democracy. It's untidy; of course it is. It's supposed to be that way. The Congress, far from being dysfunctional, is functioning as a representative institution; representing a country that is of two minds about it's government."
What we need is a national election to break the deadlock; fortunately, there is just such an election scheduled for next November!
http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2011/knowless/
Fox New Watchers know less than those that don't watch any news.
There. Done.
Lisa
George Will is on ABC, not Fox.
We pay these people to make decisions - doing nothing for 2 years is not acceptable. People are suffering over this inaction. I don't agree we have a system that is working right now. At all.
I feel like we're being held hostage.
What? You mean the MSM actually let a conservative express his views on air? Say it isn't so! That's not fair and balanced.
"We pay these people to make decisions...."
The Congressional Democrats have more or less made the decision to say NO to the Republican plans, and the Congressional Republicans have more or less made the decision to say No to the Democrat plans.
After next years election, one side or the other should win enough of a majority to break the dead lock. At the moment it looks like the Republicans will keep control of the House, and quite possibly take over control of the Senate. It is less likely, though not inconceivable, that the Dems will hold the Senate and take back control of the House.
Either way, the Nation will have made a choice on which path to take.
That is how the system was designed to work, and how it HAS worked for 200 years.
You see Dennis, According to Andre, everybody can basically sit back and do nothing in this country until next year, it's the American way. There's no urgency here, at least among the rich.
Perhaps the GOP (and Dems for that matter) should take Herman Cain's advice and "blame themselves" instead of everyone else.
"do nothing in this country"?
The House Republicans have passed a large number of Bills, which they have sent on to the Democrat controlled Senate, where Reid has cowardly refused to even allow them to be publicly debated, let alone voted upon (almost certainly because he knows that a significant number of his Democrats would probably jump off the reservation and vote for their passage).
Direct your criticism where it is warranted.
And yes, if any of your votes helped give Reid this stranglehold on the legislative process, then you should blame yourself.
"You mean the MSM actually let a conservative express his views on air? "
Sorry. That is "Off-Topic", so I am not allowed to explain to you how dumb, and how completely missing of the point, that comment is.
That was sarcasm Andre, something with which you're intimately familiar. Most of the time sarcasm is rhitorical, as in this case, but i most appreciate your post telling me you can't post a response to my rhitorical, sarcastic comment.
Andre - your comment simply illustrates the exact obstructionism that I am pointing out. The GOP refuses to even debate the Presidents bill - they only want to present their own - like spoiled children. And they write up all these bills (wasting a lot of time) in order to make it appear that the Democrats are the ones blocking. I've seen the Democrats do it in the past and it was just as wrong.
You believe this deadlock is somehow productive. I strongly disagree. What happens if at the next election we end up with a similar power struggle? Do we just wait another 2 years and try it again? I can't believe anyone would agree that is a good thing.
A failure to negotiate is a total failure for America - no matter who is doing it. Write to your representatives and tell them to break their stupid pledges and get to work or they will be promptly removed.
Excuse me, the GOP WON THE LAST ELECTION, and by a huge margin.
Why would you now ask them to betray both their core pledges and beliefs, and to betray the millions of constituents who elected them?
The Liberals lost the election. They are the ones who should concede defeat and bow to the will of the people.
"What happens if at the next election we end up with a similar power struggle? "
I am fairly confident that the GOP will keep the House and take the Senate next year. At that point the deadlock will be broken, regardless of whether the White House is occupied by a President Romney, or a President Hilary.
"Do we just wait another 2 years and try it again? I can't believe anyone would agree that is a good thing."
No, that would be a totally crappy thing. The only possible worse scenario would be an Obama re-election and the DEMS taking back the House and keeping the Senate. That would be the beginning of the end of the United States of America (and probably also the fall of Western Civilization). If we can avoid that outcome, we will still have a chance. If we fail, we are doomed.
I believe the last scenario is entirely likely! Fingers crossed.
And if that happens - will you still say that the will of the people is being done when we push through our agenda? I would say the will of some of the people is being done.
If the power struggle is reversed and it is the Dems who have to block the GOP Agenda will that be OK with you?
I'm saying it is bad for EITHER party to totally block without negotiation.
Very on-topic:
Yuval Levin has a great recent article about the role of "deadlock" in the Constitution. Given the many misunderstandings that are painfully displayed in your post regarding how our Constitutional system is designed to work, I think this short article would be of immense assistance to you (there is even a link to an audio version of it).
"The Constitution is built upon a profound skepticism about the ability of any political arrangement to overcome the limitations of human reason and human nature, and so establishes a system of checks to prevent sudden large mistakes while enabling gradual change supported by a broad and longstanding consensus. Experts should not govern, nor should the people do so directly, but rather the people's representatives should govern in a system filled with mediating institutions and opposing interests - a system designed to force us to see problems and proposed solutions from a variety of angles simultaneously, and as Alexander Hamilton put it in Federalist 73, " to increase the chances in favor of the community against the passing of bad laws through haste, inadvertence, or design.""
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/283326/what-constitutional-conservatism-yuval-levin
Also from that article:
"...expert omniscience could not be trusted to check the excesses of popular passion, and public omniscience could not be trusted to check the excesses of expert arrogance. In the view of the framers, there is no omniscience, there is only imperfect humanity. We therefore need checks on all of our various excesses, and a system that forces us to think through important decisions as best we can. This may well be the essential insight of our constitutional system: Since there is no perfection in human affairs, any system of government has to account for the permanent imperfections of the people who are both governing and governed, and this is best achieved through constitutional forms that compel self-restraint and enable self-correction."
He also provide a brilliant analysis of how the TP and OWS movements both approach these issues from completely different directions.
Enjoy.
Happy Thanksgiving!
I'm in perfect agreement with both of those comments. However, that's not what we have now.
" representatives should govern in a system filled with mediating institutions and opposing interests - a system designed to force us to see problems and proposed solutions from a variety of angles simultaneously,"
Our current problem is that some of our elected representatives have signed pledges not to view solutions from a variety of angles and therefore are not governing in a constitutional manner. They need to be removed and the system will start working as intended again.
You are peddling a myth:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-grover-norquist-tax-myth/2011/11/23/gIQAsuJhtN_story.html
A myth??! I read that the so called supercommittee failed to come to an agreement. What story did you hear that indicates they were successful? and this supercommittee was formed because they couldn't come to an agreement on the debt ceiling prior and on and on and on.........
The original article I wrote and my comments did not specifically point to any reason why they failed but I did allude to taxes because I mentioned the signed pledges by the Tea Party members. Are those also a myth? I think I can easily find some evidence that they do indeed exist and that most Tea Party members signed them.
I think it is time we faced YOUR myth. The myth that raising taxes on the rich will hurt job creation. That is the real myth here. Again, as I said before - raising taxes on businesses excessively might hurt job creation - but raising taxes on excessive personal wealth??! Myth.
Actually it's more like a big fat lie.
The Republicans offered proposals in the Supercomittee meetings that included increased tax revenues (through closing loopholes, rather than raising rates), but the Dems balked, and walked away out of purely self-serving partisan political motives: The Dems know that they have absolutely no record of accomplishment for the last three years on which to run on,just a record of failure upon failure, so their only hope is to lie to the American people and try to blame it all on a this completely fabricated myth of Republican "obstructionism".
***
"The myth that raising taxes on the rich will hurt job creation. That is the real myth here."
Where is your evidence in support of that claim? (I have provided links in the past here to numerous studies that have shown how in recent years low tax states have been completely kicking the ass in job creation over high tax states).
Andre - you act as if we have not been paying attention. The obstructionism is real, dramatically obvious and terrible for this country. Thank you for confirming that GOP candidates on the supercommittee refused to raise tax rates.
Closing tax loopholes should be a matter of due diligence for our government on a continuing basis. Just like ending programs that are no longer needed should be a matter of due diligence. But we need to be very careful in the cuts to programs that actually are still needed. If we are not already doing those things then it is little wonder why we are in this mess. However, doing this due diligence would likely not get us out of our debt crisis - revenues must be addressed as well.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15869683
Fake forum comments.
EXACTLY!!! That's why if you read comments on USA Today or other news articles you would think that President Obama is the worst president ever. Yet out in the real world he is still very much respected despite a still sluggish economy. The fakes are really easy to spot though once you get used to reading those posts - especially the ones that continuously post negative comments about the news source itself. Normal readers don't spend that much time reading articles they don't agree with. You won't find me hanging out on Fox News!
I think the fake commenters are the most harmful when it comes to product reviews. Most comments these days are fake - either to make you buy their product or to discourage you from buying a competitors product. People rely on those comments to make a wise purchase - they shouldn't anymore.
I just found out that USA Today is going to start requiring a Facebook login in order to comment on their stories. While I don't typically approve of this type of Internet linking - I think it will very easily cut down on the fake comments.
Yay!
The time of transparency is upon us all.
"Thank you for confirming that GOP candidates on the supercommittee refused to raise tax rates."
You needed confirmation that the GOP was the Party opposed to raising tax rates?
This is some kind of news?
"Andre - you act as if we have not been paying attention."
Hello?
What other conclusion would one most reasonably draw from the above other than that YOU are the one that is acting as if they have not been paying attention (for the last forty years, at least!)?
Certainly, you must have miss-typed, and have meant something else completely?
****
"...if you read comments on USA Today or other news articles you would think that President Obama is the worst president ever."
Perhaps...I wouldn't know (I can't remember ever having read USA Today, not even once)...but you could just take an objective look at his failed policies and much-commented-upon lack of leadership, and come to a quite similar conclusion, so it wouldn't really be all that surprising to find those type of sentiments reflected by so many people, would it?
"...out in the real world he is still very much respected..."
Really? I wonder why that isn't reflected in the most scientific and historically validated polling data? (He may be liked personally, but his numbers for leadership, and for handling of the economy, are abysmal)
Lots of great things have been accomplished over the last several years under the leadership of President Obama. Just because you don't like where he is leading doesn't mean he isn't leading.
Read my lips... the GOP used to know how to compromise.
"...the GOP used to know how to compromise."
Yes, and the facts on the ground clearly indicate that they still do:
http://keithhennessey.com/2011/11/22/congressional-republicans-strategic-shift-on-taxes/
"Just because you don't like where he is leading doesn't mean he isn't leading."
No, it doesn't necessarily mean that, that is true. I happen to believe that he is leading us off a cliff, so I guess you could argue that is some form of "leadership".
But that does not address the point that I was making, which is that your claim that "...out in the real world he is still very much respected..." is not reflected in the most scientifically reliable polling available to us:
http://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html
You may be right, and they may all be wrong, but clearly a majority of Americans disagree with your assessment of President Obama's performance.
Someone led us off a cliff and it wasn't Obama.
Let's just watch what happens when the GOP nominee is chosen. Then we will see how popular the President is.
I see in the news today that Barney Frank is heading for the exit door. I can't imagine he would be doing that if he thought that the Dems had any decent chance of winning next year's election. I wonder what internal polling he must have access to?
Well, one thing is for sure, either Mitt or Newt would wipe the floor with Obama in a debate (even if the President accepts Newts gracious offer to be allowed to use his teleprompter during the debates!).
But I still believe that Hilary Clinton will be the Democrat candidate for President next year.
Some prominent Democrat pollsters are already laying out the Welcome Mat for her:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203611404577041950781477944.html
Better Link:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203611404577041950781477944.html
You can also listen to Pat Caddell make a passionate, entertaining, and convincing case for how Hillary may be the only hope for the Democrats next year. He starts at about the 16:30 mark:
http://ricochet.com/podcast-episode-popup/ricochet-podcast/A-Pre-Revolutionary-Moment
Type an "l' at the end (html) and that Wall Street Journal link will work.
You should really read the article; I'd love to hear your reaction to it.
On the other hand....
Charles Krauthammer provides some comfort to your side:
"I think it’s remarkable [that] with unemployment at nine percent and growth essentially stalled at two percent his [Pres. Obama’s approval] numbers are so relatively high. They ought to be in the ’30s. They are in the mid-40s. That speaks well for him.
And I think any Republican who assumes that because we have high unemployment they are going to win the election hands down is mistaken.
It’s true: There has been a rule since 1936 that no president has been reelected with unemployment above, I think it’s 7.8 percent. I don’t think that rule applies anymore. We sort of have gotten used to — perhaps not nine percent, but it [nine percent] isn’t as shocking as it would have been had we been at four percent last year. It’s becoming a chronic condition."
I've learned to always pay close attention to what the "Hammer" has to say....he's usually right.
I don't think we need to worry about who the Democratic candidate is - it will be Obama. However, we do need to be concerned with who the GOP candidate is because any of the current candidates would be disastrous for this country. As I've said before - we must always consider that either side might win in any election so I sure hope there is a good GOP candidate that we haven't meet yet.
We really should get back to discussing the deadlock in Washington - the subject of this article.
Boring.
Inaction is not only boring - it is devastating for our county. We pay them to do something - make them do it!
From US News & World Report today:
"President Obama's slow ride down Gallup's daily presidential job approval index has finally passed below Jimmy Carter, earning Obama the worst job approval rating of any president at this stage of his term in modern political history."
"We pay them to do something - make them do it!"
You sound a little like Chris Christie:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/11/29/christie_to_obama_what_the_hell_are_we_paying_you_for.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/11/29/christie_to_obama_what_the_hell_are_we_paying_you_for.html
why won't my links post in full?
You have to add this to the end of the last one:
you_for.html
"I sure hope there is a good GOP candidate that we haven't meet yet."
I share that sentiment. Unfortunately, this late in the game, I think we are stuck with what we have. Although just about any of them (apart from Paul) would be a huge improvement on the current President, I am disappointed that Ryan and Christie didn't jump in.
Ryan would have been my first choice, but it sure is hard not to love Christie:
http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Chris-Christie-on-Taxing-the-Rich
This article is not about President Obama or any of the presidential candidates. Why is it so difficult to stay on topic??!!!
What "article"?
The one you are commenting on. The one about the deadlock in Washington. I know you like links - here it is.
http://denbec.blogspot.com/2011/11/public-is-revolting.html
Well that's a big part of the problem with your thinking: you fail to even consider the role that Obama and the Democrats are playing in the current impasse/dysfunction in Washington.
I AM on the topic, it's just that the topic is bigger than you seem able (or willing) to confront.
You need to broaden your horizons.
Democrats are definitely involved in these negotiations. But they must get through the House and Senate before it gets to the President so we can leave him out of this discussion.
Wrong.
The President holds a unique leadership position in our system.
President Obama was widely, and appropriately, criticized for being completely AWOL during the Supercommittee process.
A total failure of leadership on his part.
A Reagan (or even a Clinton) would not have stood at the side-lines with his hands in his pocket. They would have jumped right in with all the power and prestige of the Presidential bully-pulpit and made sure that both sides got the message that failure was not an option.
Of course, there are many voices claiming that Obama sat on his hands because he wanted the Supercomittee to fail for his own personal re-election strategy purposes, and I think there is probably much truth to that...but that's another story.
Hmmmmm. I saw him out traveling around the USA urging people to call their representatives to make them take action. I guess you call that campaigning - I call it leading.
Well, it is possible to lead and campaign simultaneously. As a matter of fact,I would think that one of the best possible ways for any politician to campaign would be to focus on displaying strong and effective leadership.
Given the failure of the Supercommittee, and the President's low polling numbers, it seems clear that Obama is doing neither one very successfully right now.
He has time to turn that around, of course. One of the big wild cards is the increasing likelihood that we will be engaged in military action against Iran in the next few months, either directly, or through support of an Isreali attack. That could change everything.
"Let's just watch what happens when the GOP nominee is chosen. Then we will see how popular the President is."
Right. It is hard to predict these things. It's been funny to notice over the last year how "Generic Republican" does so much better in the polling against Obama than any of the actual Republican candidates (I take some comfort though from today's Rasmussen poll showing Newt beating Obama nationally 45% to 43%.)
CORRECTION:
"Well, one thing is for sure, either Mitt or Newt would wipe the floor with Obama in a debate..."
Brain fart. I must have been smoking crack.
Just for the record:
Mitt Romney will NOT wipe the floor with Obama in a debate. He will almost certainly lose in a debate with Obama (or at best,a tie).
(Gingrich, of course would demolish Obama in a debate; although, that does not necessarily mean that he would beat him in a national election).
Post a Comment