When We Vote Out the Money...

...We Will Rid Ourselves of the Greed and the Stupidity in Government.

Mon, 06/14/2010
SHIRLEY SMITH FOR BUZZFLASH

Conservatives supported slavery, conservatives opposed women's suffrage, conservatives supported Jim Crow, conservatives opposed the forty-hour work week and the abolishment of child labor...all the major advancements of freedom and justice in our history were...opposed by conservatives. --Paul Waldman, "It's the Conservatism, Stupid," TomPaine.com (July 12, 2006) from What Liberals Believe, edited by William Martin, 2008.

It's been a long season, at least 40 years this time around. The BP oil slick has been a reminder again of what has been wrong with US government for at least these past years. Slick politicians and their slick corporate MSM counterparts taking over the people's government and then blaming the people. And, it doesn't seem to stop there.

June 2010 issue of National Geographic has an article on Greenland and their future. "Greenland's future may lie out beyond its spectacular fishing grounds: That's where the oil is." The problem has been that oil is not a future, we've seen this many times, how oil soils and ruins . . . it is in the past, and new advances have to be tried and discovered, that's reality. I've always felt that the money made by these large oil companies should have been spent, at least in part, on future discoveries using science. The difference between brains, greed, and stupidity. We are dealing with 'fossil fuels,' which leaves me wondering if the Neanderthals did survive after all. (sarcastic remark)

After the last eight years of debt, death, and destruction by the Bush/Cheney/Rove regime and the current Republican Party, many of us Americans thought we had a chance to turn things around before our economy would get so bad in this country and to save our planet's environment. Scientists have warned us that there is a point of no return when fouling our own nest.

Two years before the last election, many of our GOP leaning MSM started trumpeting Clinton and Obama in the news until they both announced their candidacy. At the time, and because of the Bush GOP's criminal acts for eight years, I felt that, again, to put it bluntly, the GOP's MSM was choosing our candidates for us. In fact, I thought that they felt that the only way they, the Bush GOP, could win in that election would be to run against a woman or a black man.

There's no way to prove that that is what happened, but the liberals and the progressives thought we saw a future of "change" in what Obama was saying at the time. However, when Obama announced his administration, I felt betrayed at that time, and, today, nothing has changed all that much. There's been no accountability.

In my only opinion, if change is a government of Clintons and Bush operatives; if change is a health plan that does not do the job needed; if change is to keep our military, our young people in Afghanistan and Iraq; if change is to still see Democrats in Congress vote with this same Bush GOP; if change is to see this same Republican Party to sit down and refuse to help clean up what they did to this economy and to this country; hello, my fellow citizens, there's been no real change, and we know it because we live out in the mother land and we can feel it -- unlike those who live on that easy street found behind the DC beltway.

Many citizens, including myself, wanted Obama to imitate FDR. Why was the "New Deal" successful? It's always referred to as something the GOP wants to kill, when the Republicans go against the Democrats in Congress, however, the New Deal was not successful as it could have been during FDR's time, due to the same problems we are faced with today. The success of the New Deal came much later. Republicans and their idea of the big "C," Conservatism, which in my mind is either due to small, narrow hallways in their minds that filter information, stinginess, or, and this one feels right, an ingrained greed for more, whether it be financial or for power. We've seen no sign of a limit. Taking a look back . . .

The New Deal, Paul K. Conkin, The University of Wisconsin, second edition, 1975. page 48:

The charm of the New Deal was not at the level of political visibility but hidden in the agencies and subagencies. Roosevelt's very failure to pursue one coherent program allowed a greater variety of fascinating people to enter the government service. Among them were the social workers and do-gooders, a few from the academies but most from labor unions, welfare agencies, newspapers, and architectural firms. They were often the glory of the New Deal, molded more in the humane image of Eleanor Roosevelt, than that of her politician husband. Some were dreamers, even utopian dreamers. They were often as unconventional as Roosevelt was conventional, as dogmatic in outlook as he was flexible, as cocksure of their own plans as he was unclear about his.

They worked on the Consumer Advisory Council of the NRA (National Recovery Administration), carried out research for the National Resources Committee, designed homesteads in Appalachia, or planned minimal budgets for the FERA (Federal Emergency Relief Adm.). A more sophisticated group formed a radical coterie in the AAA and were concerned more for tenant farmers and migratory workers than for the welfare of the Farm Bureau.

Others tried to organize miners, felt that Negroes should share equally in New Deal policies, organized community centers and applauded folk art, raved about town meetings, rarely talked for two minutes without mentioning cooperation, and made social concern a mark of acceptability and "conservatism" a mark of Cain. (snip)

These rebels gathered in a hundred corridors to talk and plan and plot their ongoing revolution, their new world a-making. In darker corners, some found their Communist cells and added an apocalyptic urgency to their profound concern. The New Deal went no one place, tried no one thing. But the individual agencies often developed clear plans and tried to achieve them. The New Deal as a vast and complex whole, denied the idea of experimentation -- clear hypotheses and controlled verification. But a dozen agencies were perfect social laboratories and remained so as long as they could hide from the compromises necessitated by politics.

And, it goes on to say that this humane undertaking never came close to being achieved because they had to quit or learn to compromise. If fact, this nation, today, has been, over the years, compromised almost to death. Mostly by the Democratic Party giving into the GOP Conservatives of yesteryear and the Bush/Cheney/Rove GOP of today.

Another word that was born at that time after the watered down "New Deal" was the "welfare state." Many people in this country have bought into the idea that if a person gets any kind of help from the government, the people's government, to keep from starving or to keep off the street, they should feel ashamed. But, if they are wealthy and lose their money due to financial or political shenanigans and get reimbursed such as Wall Street or the banks -- that's okay.

What this tells me is that no one in our government wants to take responsibility for the killing of our economy. After all of the brouhaha concerning the Conservatives and the New Deal, they, those of moral and religious vision, became worried about sustained growth. Unbelievable, but true. Want to stop this? Taxes.

Growth could lead to vast production, to an enormous gross national product, but also to ugliness and spiritual poverty everywhere. It might even lead to full employment and undreamed-of security (goals never fully attained), yet to a society bereft of meaningful work, of personal involvement, even of democratic participation. It might suggest the blessing of leisure but bring only the curse of idleness." (snip) During the war the disturbing reformers dropped from view and did not emerge again until the sixties. Then to the profound surprise of all good men of power, the one-third ill-fed and ill-housed, and the two-thirds alienated and desperate, still existed. In spite of the New Deal and in spite of all that welfare!

What this nation needs is another New Deal as another revolution and again making the claim stick this time that "Conservatism," whether it be the mark of Cain or not, it has taken from the people of this country and given to the politicians and their corporate supporters. Not so you say? It takes money to buy a job in this government. It takes money to buy a good education or go into debt for the rest of one's life. Again, the only value in our government today is that there are many places for stupid people if they have enough money. And, if we take a good look at this nation today and where we are today, greed and stupidity reign, and many of the politicians today think we Americans are stupid because we keep buying into their propaganda.

Today, we have multi-millionaires making decisions for the other 95% of the people of this nation. Can they relate to the poor, the out-of-work, those who have lost everything due to a bad economy? The answer is obvious. They can relate just about as much as those same conservatives did back during the time of FDR.

Deregulation, privatization is not for the good of the American people. It's only for money-making politicians and their connections. And, when people object they are knocked down for being against government. The kind of revolution we need today is what they had back during the hay day of the New Deal. The Republican Party wants people to think that it was a success and they are attacking it, but in actuality, it was kept from being the success it could have been.

We can't blame ourselves for who we put into government, we have to blame the fact that it takes money. We have to take the money out of government, out of our elections, and out of our educational system. We are losing brains every year because of money and that's one thing the "wealthy and not-so-bright in this society do understand," as long as there is an un-level playing field, they will always be able to buy whatever they want or whoever they want.

We can't change people and their greed, their soft life, but if we want to keep this country and this earth around for future generations, we have to take government away from the greedy and the stupid.

The only problem with any of this is, how do we do it? We thought Obama was going to do it. We thought the Clintons were going to do it . . . and, today, the threat of our environment is worse. Due to the invasion/occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan by the Bush GOP (at the time, most all had never served in the military), innocent Americans will continue to die because we are now hated around the world. Again, remember, Bush was warned several times before 9/11, and Saddam had nothing to do with it. No accountability for this impeachable act. If it is not an impeachable act, it should be.

If we Americans have to fear U.S. law, so should our politicians, that should be a number one change. Our Supreme Court should not be able to get away with breaking the law, and they did without any fear of US law.

Change has to begin within the population. How can anyone support this Republican Party, the same political party that supported the obvious lies that led to the invasion of Iraq. Again, who do we think we are? This nation invaded and attacked another nation because the Bush/Cheney/Roves of US government "thought" that Saddam had WMD. They lied.

As I constantly repeat, the U.S. has the largest stash of WMD in the world. Does that mean every nation has the right to invade us? That is the idea behind the Bush GOP's propaganda at the time, thinking we Americans were stupid enough to buy it. Many were. Never mind that at the time, Saddam didn't have a plane that could get off the ground, probably thanks to years and years of bombing ordered by Clinton, for no other reason than to please Bush number one.

What impressed me with the objections to the New Deal or anything US government does for the citizens of this country, those Republicans in Congress and their Party teabaggers never quibbled at all about the illegal and treasonous invasion into Iraq, knowing that unarmed, innocent people, including our own youth, would be killed. They never stood up in eight years against the debt, death, and destruction going on due to the policies by the Bush GOP regime.

Helping the poor? Bad idea. Killing innocent poor people? Good government. Have we, as a nation, gone completely balmy? And, still, today, no accountability. No U.S. law in U.S. government.

A big "C" conservative Republican Party along with their supporters in US government that is responsible for the murders of over a million people, the displacement of two to three million or more people and the highest debt ever in US history. Their sit down on the job in D.C. was because they lost the election to the Democrats, even though many Democrats in Congress and the Executive Branch have bent over trying to please them. No, the put down has to come from the people. Even if people are disappointed in Obama, do we want the same greedy political party who considers themselves "conservatives," only when it comes to the American people and allow them to break this nation into a million pieces (the Humpty Dumpty effect) until it will be humanly impossible to put us back together again? Do we want those people back in charge?

The first Michael J. Fox movie Back to the Future was playing on TV and struck me as appropriate today when the U.S., because of Conservatives and their supporters, is headed in that direction. Big C or little c, Conservatives don't change, so it seems. There is nothing wrong with being conservative, that is, if one has a whole lot to begin with, which in today's world does not speak for most of us. And it should be important to have that as a balance of power. That is what being a Conservative should mean and is what many Americans thinks it means, if they are not paying attention today.

Back then, during FDR's time, Conservatives in government were what they are today, conservative when it comes to money (their money), conservative with empathy, sympathy, basic rights and civil rights when they are in power. Conservative when they are supposed to be working for the people. Conservative with big government unless it means more in the pocket for themselves.

In fact, our own Supreme Court, you know, the one that put their own man into office in 2000, it, too, has been political before which was also during FDR's time in office. And, even many years before that time:

In 1918 Hammer v. Dagenhart: Once the Civil War had dispatched the federal/state power struggle, the Court turned its attention to the country's latest concern: getting rich. Making America wealthy involved yet another wrestling match, this time between government and business. Now the justices leapt into the ring, headed straight for the big-money corner, and spent the remainder of the Gilded Age utilizing their now considerable repertoire of judicial maneuvers to defend vested wealth against government interference. From Reconstruction through Depression, they handed down a series of decisions that succeeded in blocking federal and state regulations, promoting the principle of laissez-faire, and generally helping the rich get richer. (snip) In Hammer v. Dagenhart the Court overturned a Congressional act designed to limit child labor. (Taken from "An Incomplete Education" by Judy Jones and William Wilson)

Because of the human factor in almost anything, including a Supreme Court, I do not believe in "lifetime appointments," for such an important branch of US government. Break the law, still got a job. No wonder this country is in so much trouble today.

Does any of this sound familiar? After all, Bush never won an election and is treated as a resident of the White House for eight long, economically destroying years. The illustrious U.S. Supreme Court put their boy into office in 2000, and the Democrats let them do it, even after they (Scalia) said they would "break their own law" just this once.

Politics should be kept out of a Court that is supposed to be beyond such practices. Everything that the Bush/Cheney/Rove regime did for eights years is also a direct responsibility of our own Supreme Court and the five fake justices who put Bush into office.

This is just part of the problem we Democrats have today: The vote this past week and who voted.

The defeated resolution would have denied the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to move ahead with the rules, crafted under the federal Clean Air Act. With President Barack Obama's broader clean energy legislation struggling to gain a foothold in the Senate, the vote took on greater significance as a signal of where lawmakers stand on dealing with climate change.

The bill is S.J. Res. 26.

Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs ---47
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brown (R-MA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
LeMieux (R-FL)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Wicker (R-MS)

NAYs ---53
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burris (D-IL)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaufman (D-DE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Specter (D-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

As these votes show, the problems in the Democratic Party are within the Democratic Party and have been for a long time. These same members of Congress vote constantly with the Republican Party. This is not new and until we have a Party of Democrats who believe in the Democratic Party's view, and are loyal members, our economic troubles, our troubles around the world will continue. Until we have a split by Democrats who feel that they have to get along with these same members of Congress who supported the criminal and treasonous Bush/Cheney/Rove regime, we will continue to have the same problems and they will continue to become worse. This nation cannot grow as long as those who are supposed to be working for the people and the betterment of this nation continue to vote for themselves and whatever corporation or body of wealth they owe their loyalty to, it most certainly is not to the lower 95% of this nation.

The level of discourse in the House and the Senate is so low that there are parents who, instead of grounding their teenage children for infractions of the family's rules, make them listen to three hours of floor discussion in Congress as a punishment.
--Nicholas von Hoffman, "America's Idiotic Political Debates," Nation(May 4, 2007).

I rest my case. Maybe we Americans don't know the answers to all of the problems (that's why we have a Congress), but we do know how and why they exist. Change means just that, big 'C' for change and little 'c' for conservatives from now on. We've seen their act and that show needs to be canceled for good.

We Americans are going to have to make the changes. We need to start with the money. For sure, that will grab their (members in Congress) attention. We know who robbed the bank (US treasury), and we know those who just stood by and watched, and did nothing, but that doesn't mean that we get angry enough to put the robbers back in charge of that same bank during the next election time, because they will do it again, and again, and again. Better to have the 'do nothings' or the 'slow to do somethings' in charge (sarcastically speaking). We will get the change we want, it's just going to take more time. First, we have to get their attention. From the New Deal to No Deal -- to accountability.

Change starts at home where the heart is, where the hurt is, where the bandages are, and the bloodshed -- out in the mother land. Next time, liberals and progressives, support candidates who will make changes. We need the country behind us, including a democratic MSM, and then it will happen. When we vote out the money, we will rid ourselves of the greed and the stupidity in government.