They speak. I believe. I vote. Isn’t that how it works?

OT

Interesting post about the split at Netroots b/w the “Purists” vs. the “Pragmatists”.

About half the people there are some combination of angry, disappointed and bitter with Democrats in general and Obama in particular. This group sees him as not a heck of a lot better than George Bush, and in fact the Democrat who extended some of Bush’s worst policies, especially in civil liberties. The first sees the second as tribalistic sellouts, willing to excuse horrible things they would never excuse in Republicans so long as they are committed by Democrats and lacking an understanding of just how bad Democratic policy has been. These are folks who tend to sneer at the “wins” as either illusionary or so underwhelming as to be a parody of the lesser evil argument.

Then there are the folks who would characterize themselves, in general, as hard nosed pragmatists and “realists”. These range from the “Obama is the greatest liberal president since FDR” types, who think that the Obama is just wonderful and those progressives and liberals who don’t agree are simply delusional to those who feel that a lot of what he’s done has been watered down pap in general but that it’s certainly better than nothing and that those who are disappointed are unrealistic idealists who simply don’t understand the constraints Obama and Congressional Democrats are working under.

http://www.ianwelsh.net/netroots-schizo/comment-page-1/#comments

They get $ 3,300 per week to do everything or nothing. A couple of go rounds and you are guaranteed a nice pension of over a $ 1,000 a week and get to retire, in some cases at, 50 rather then the 70 year old idea for the little people.

The democrats, lead by obama, showed their true colors in the war vote with the senate voting earlier. Go along to get along is nice if you get the gig.

If(When) the Republicans take control of the Senate, then they can ramrod their own destructive pro-megacorporate agenda. Is that the current argument against the filibuster rule change?

Ian pulls no punches, one wishes, most sincerely, that he was still here, where once, he was very much appreciated, jake.

DW

are unrealistic idealists who simply don’t understand the constraints Obama and Congressional Democrats are working under.

That’s me. They are operating on false self imposed limits. Are the republicans “making” obama incinerate little children and babies ?

Eisnehower’s warning about the power and control of the Congressional Military Industrial Complex has come true in spades. The MIC has become so wealthy and powerful that it controls the government.

What happened? I miss all the good stuff.

Republicans in 2005 made it clearly they have no problem with killing the filibuster if need be to ram through what they wanted so keep it provides only the illusion of protection

I miss Ian too.

I was against the nuclear option when republicans had control, I am against it now

we WILL lose our majority, probably this election cycle at that, it is rediculous that we want to change filibuster rules, we should be making them stronger

Watch what happens Jon when the Gopers re-take the Congress. Obama will sign just about everything they hand him because he’ll claim he’s just fulfilling the will of the people. No matter how regressive the crap they hand him he’ll have no problem signing it. Plus, the Dinocrats will go right along and help out. We need a real Progressive party, we’ll never get anywhere with the two Corporatist right wing parties that own DC right now.

From the comments on Ian’s article, this guy/girl nails the Obama presidency.

Albatross

Just as racism is the distraction the wealthy use to cloak their brutal class war, so is partisanship the cloak the aristocracy uses to distract from their brutal oligarchy. Republican? Democrat? I suspect Obama doesn’t see a lick of difference between the two. I think what has caught Obama most flat-footed as president has been the extent to which Congress actually takes partisanship seriously. I suspect he’s cynical enough that once he was elected Senator he considered himself part of the aristocracy, and considered partisanship passe. He probably believed that he could unite the Beltway behind a president who was solidly supporting Beltway aristocrats, and honestly it does frequently seem like Republican partisan contrariness works against their own interests as well as those of everybody else.

Regardless, politics does seem like an increasingly pointless exercise from the point of view of an average citizen. Following the Citizens United ruling, it seems highly unlikely that we can avoid having our democracy dissolved in a boiling vat of acidic cash. It seems in a lot of ways like the best thing do to is stay out of it, and wait for it all to collapse under its own weight.

Obama does seem truly surprised that the Republicans don’t vote for his legislation (and it is his legislation). He wants to be on their team, and is constantly seeking approval from them (courting David Brooks, for fuck’s sake).

Obama wants the Gopers to win this fall. Then he can blame the rest of us for happens next.

we WILL lose our majority, probably this election cycle at that, it is rediculous that we want to change filibuster rules, we should be making them stronger

The GOP doesn’t need the filibuster broken. They get help from enough “Democrats” to get what they want passed.

From the Bush presidency, via Glenn Greenwald…

To support the new Bush-supported FISA law:
GOP – 48-0 / Dems – 12-36
To compel redeployment of troops from Iraq:
GOP – 0-49 / Dems – 24-21
To confirm Michael Mukasey as Attorney General:
GOP – 46-0 / Dems – 7-40
To confirm Leslie Southwick as Circuit Court Judge:
GOP – 49-0 / Dems – 8-38
Kyl-Lieberman Resolution on Iran:
GOP – 46-2 / Dems – 30-20
To condemn MoveOn.org:
GOP – 49-0 / Dems – 23-25
The Protect America Act:
GOP – 44-0 / Dems – 20-28
Declaring English to be the Government’s official language:
GOP – 48-1 / Dems – 16-33
The Military Commissions Act:
GOP – 53-0 / Dems – 12-34
To renew the Patriot Act:
GOP – 54-0 / Dems – 34-10
Cloture Vote on Sam Alito’s confirmation to the Supreme Court:
GOP – 54-0 / Dems – 18-25
Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq:
GOP – 48-1 / Dems – 29-22

I’ve got a better analogy. It’s like the man/woman who says they work out to get in shape and lose weight. They join the gym, but don’t go. Or if they do go, they dress for the gym, get there and just talk to people but never does any workout. Then complains that they can’t lose weight even though they go to the gym everyday.

yup, we help them when they have power, we help then when they don’t have power

that’s because our ticians are owned by their corporate donors

So what happened to Ian? I have to know more of the backstory of “As FDL Turns”?

Interesting speculation. Before an election, incumbent Democrats in the Senate are saying the Reid won’t have enough votes. He is likely to have the votes of most of the incoming freshmen. The only question is how many incoming freshmen there will be, if any. If there is another wave election favoring Democrats, there are 12 Republican seats in play. We know that Blanche Lincoln is a goner. And the North Dakota seat is likely to turn red. If Republicans win control, they will definitely change the filibuster rules. And yes, that is speculation too.

I think there are some incumbent Democrats blowing smoke about this.

Good Morning Jon and Firedogs

reading the response to this post on FB – lots of folks still need some basic background and history on the filibuster – far too many folks think it’s set in stone and all but requires a constitutional amendment to change – this is what the Feinstein’s and Tester’s are counting on

and apparently too many so called informed folks still think it’s some lone boll weevil reading from the phone book on the floor of the chamber – most don’t understand how easy it is under the present rules to bring everything to a halt

“Only one thing is stopping Senate Democrats from passing all the laws they promised you. It’s a simple rules change,….”

The promises are lies of course. The sixty vote Senate is a scam perpetrated by the Democrats (the party in power) as a cover for their lies.

The Democratic super majority has been a huge embarrassment for the Democrats. It has proved that Democrats are corporate whores and war mongers just like Republicans.

Job #1 of a R majority is to destroy the filibuster. You’re an idiot if you don’t believe that. The Republican caucus is much more extreme than it was in 2005, when they nearly took it down when Dems refused to confirm 10 out of 200 judges.

Wow. Thanks Jake and Albatross. Pointless exercise indeed. I can’t even read partisan bull shit anymore. Let it burn.

The filibuster is a convenient skirt for both parties to hide behind. Without it, Senators’ votes would be out there for all the world to see and they can’t have that.

It is also hugely convenient for the House, because gosh darn it, it just isn’t their fault that the Senate can’t pass anything the voters actually want.

So all members of Congress can keep taking their lobbyist bribes with a clear conscience, because bad policy and worse politics is always someone else’s fault.

It has been obvious for years now that what elected officials say to their constituents to get elected is completely decoupled from their conduct in office, i.e., they are liars. This is true for both parties.

The chance that any of them actually want to change the rules to be more accountable to the public is zero.

Compared to recent Administrations where 1 party controlled the White House & the House & Senate the Dems have HUGE majorities. Clearly, Obama & team use the 60 vote rule as a smokescreen. How was it that Bush passed so much “bad” law when he had lesser majorities? Easy. His inner circle came to office with Domestic, International & Economic agendas they WANTED to see enacted. They wanted “REAL” change & they got it. Repub. Congressmen didn’t dare oppose that agenda, they feared Rove’s reprisal a lot more than that of their constituents back home.
The simple truth is Obama & team aren’t pursuing an agenda offering “hope” and “real change” for anyone but themselves. What’s changed since Obama’s been elected? Anything? We’re a very long time removed from FDR’s call for those who have more to give more.
So, what is it Obama REALLY wants? It’s simple – he WANTS to be a member in the insiders club. “Clarence Thomas” Obama, I voted for him!
P.S. The ONE law I’d like to see Dems enact, beyond making D.C. the 51st state, would be to give all voters the choice of voting for “none of the above”.

Jon, thanks for confirming what some us have been saying.
In a similar vein, Hartmann has been running the fear card about voting for a dem president for reasons of the Supreme Court. I’m done with that game. As FDR said, the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm

Senate rules provided for cloture for the 1st time in 1917. Before that time, debate was truly unlimited and couldn’t be stopped.

Repubs have NEVER had 60 Senators at any time since 1917. What I just said is that Repubs have NEVER been able to stop a filibuster with just Repub votes, if all Dems are present and opposed to cloture.

It appears Repubs have a lot more to fear than Dems do from changing filibuster rules or doing away with the filibuster entirely.

So long as the filibuster exists (for Republicans, of course; Democrats are much too polite to use it), it’s the best of both worlds for Democrats: they can tell us they care about our issues while still raking in the corporate cash, sadly telling us (they feel our pain) that they can’t do anything because of those intransigent Republicans and their gosh-darned filibusters. Life is sweet!

The Senate as constituted is already designed for minority representation and protection. The filibuster as now constituted ONLY BY the Senate has proven to be a mechanism for an elite minority to maintain the status quo and power over the majority.

I’m ready to risk quicker changes to meet the needs of a fast-changing society. If one group abuses the power, vote them out and reverse what they did – till we get it right.

So, what is it Obama REALLY wants? It’s simple – he WANTS to be a member in the insiders club.

Its all he ever wanted. He was the first electable black man who would play ball with the corporate/political aristocracy.

Very dishartening.

So long as the filibuster exists (for Republicans, of course; Democrats are much too polite to use it), …

The same goes for recess appointments, e.g., this bullshit from Chris Dodd.

It’s disheartening that people like Paul Krugman, who’s a heck of a lot closer to ALL communities Obama relied upon to win election, was an early & staunch Hilary supporter. Had I not been so dissuaded by PK’s terrible decisions to sit out the repeal of Glass-steagall & the Boskin Hearings, and his refusal to take a strong stand on the Housing fiasco until AFTER the bubble broke, I would’ve accepted without question his call on Obama. Mea culpa, PK was absolutely right! I have NO clue how Hilary would have ruled, but I sure am suffering from buyers’ remorse with Obama. Hilary could NOT have been worse & odds are great she might have been a LOT better.
With “Chauncey” Bush there were no surprises. He was as transparent as a grade school “wanna-be” bully. But, it’s shameful how far Obama’s governed from the ideals & promises he ran on, absolutely shameful.
My fortune cookie last night said Obama would LOVE to see Dems lose the House so he can rationalize his continued Corporate giveaways.
See, there’s wisdom everywhere if you know where to look!

Why is that corrupt disgraced loser who has RESIGNED (gone next year) from his senate seat even opening his pie-hole? What kind of idiots keep this asshat anywhere near finance reform or anything for that matter. “Senate Idiots” thats who.

dickdurban.com just spamed me with:

Filibuster-proof majority?

Dick Durban thinks we can have a Filibuster-proof majority!!!
(Like that would do diddly squat).

This prompted me to finally get off my ass and push the unsubscribe button.

I was for the “nuclear option” when the Republicans were in power and I am for it now. For progressives, support for the “Nuclear option” is simple math, game theory shows that the probability of anything progressive passing with super-majority requirements in the current setup is zero. The downside of the “nuclear option” is that something “bad” may pass, but what ameliorates this is that the “bad” could then be easily unpassed with a simple majority in a post “nuclear option” world.

And really, is there really much worth preserving in the current shithole political system?

I agree – with Hillary we had a real Democrat – albeit one that was not as far to the left as we are (or as she was in the 70′s) but one who did actually take on corporations with her tax force in 93 – and before the task force was the sole voice for single payer, being shut down by Bill in the deal for ins. co support (a deal the ins co’s reneged on).

I find Krugman the voice on the left I most agree with – The Glass-Steagall Act if still in effect would have changed nothing as it was the investment banks not regulated under that Act that led the charge (JPM derivative were as a follower and would have been replaced by other investment banks). As to the Boskin Hearings, they were over before they began when the AG said the CPI was at least a full point too high (despite Katharine Abraham – BLS Head- saying it could equally be argued that the CPI was a point too low). M3 is not a “perfect” money supply indicator but is the closest – even to those of us that do not “totally” accept Mr. Friedman’s thesis that “inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.” – as in the only cause. I am not sure of the Boskin point you are making – there is much over the last 30 years that I disagree with with Boskin – but I did not see any Boskin item that Krugman opined on or say nothing on that made me distrust his opinion.

I will sit out 2012 if Hillary is not on the ticket – Obama plus anyone else has no chance of being much different from any corporate ticket presented by the GOP. Hillary talked me into moving my support to Obama in 08 – but we are now into “fool me once……..”

I did enjoy todays “View” where Obama says he makes decisions based solely on what is best for America. :-)

Ah you mentioned my Senator the despicable Dianne Fein-elitist-Swine (she doesn’t need corporate support, she is the “corporations”).

Let me school Mrs Swine on basic math from a California prospective. California has 2 Senators out of 100 for 2% of the Senate and the other Senator is dim-bulb Boxer who I put at 15 Watt bulb (100W average) with the elderly Swine at 25 Watts (making a total 40W/200W). The filibuster rule basically makes the House the irrelevant to passing anything important. With 53 house members California has %12.18 percent of the vote in the House compared to the 2% in the Senate. So you would screw both democracy and California by keeping your stupid elitist club rules. Thanks, Feinswine!

I’d like to get over kicking myself about Obama, but I was SO easily sucked in …. How I wish I were here now living with Hilary in the wh & wondering about Obama. Oh well.
I brought up PK because I also think over the years he’s proved a pretty reliable voice for reason in general. He sure had “Chauncey” pegged & did a masterful job sharing his concerns about him. But, these 3 events were in his field of expertise, & even back then he was pretty close to the top of that field. Together I think these events combined to change our world a lot more than 9/11. For PK to skip the debate & perhaps influence that debate was unfathomable to me, Dean Baker was there warning those who would listen about all three.
You might be right about Glass-Steagall, you certainly are on your derivatives point. But, in my ideal world tenured Academic Macro-Economists would have come in buses to demand we not deregulate our money-center banks without first updating our financial regulatory oversight to allow us to effectively monitor the leviathon we were unleashing. It’s one thing to deregulate, it’s quite another to say – we trust the system.
I love the Abraham response you cite. I would have loved it even more if PK stood up & agreed with her! I recall DB later wrote that it was naive to not consider the ancillary effects such a profound % drop in cpi would have, including (among other things) enabling the FED to rev up the money printing presses. Did this new money contribute substantively to the stock bubble of the late 90s?
We certainly agree on M3, but I’ll up the ante here – why haven’t lefty Economists been leading a charge for our Gov’t. to “update” our economic gathering & measuring methodologies? How do so many people talk with a straight face about “inflation” that we refuse to correlate to a population sampling (of any size)?
Didn’t mean to get so far off topic, but it seems a relevent extension.
ps. in Obama’s ideal world he’ll opt to not run again, Hilary will run & win, the other “Clarence” will retire to GA & he’ll be nominated him to join the Supremes. (In her ideal world, she’d respond – three out of four ain’t bad!)

Count me among those who have a great deal of Obama remorse. As my school’s elected union rep, I worked hard to convince a lot of folks that we needed to go with Obama and not Hillary, and then elect Obama and not McCain. I stood in front of hundreds of school employees during union meetings and swore that Obama was really going to change things according to the promises he was making and the platform he was running on. Now, almost two years into his presidency, we see that lied to us about actually bringing about that change.

We have had some improvement over what we would have had with a McCain as president, but his lies show us just how much he was willing to give up (no importation of drugs from Canada/Mexico; no bargaining for lower prices for drugs; no public option/single payer; no closing of Gitmo; no pullback on Bush policies of spying on Americans; continued detaining of prisoners without charges in Bagram; and you watch, no recess appointment for Warren. The list is unfortunately much longer, but my memory fails me once my blood pressure goes up thinking about the list I just mentioned.

I now even believe that if another Supreme Court position became available during the next two years, Obama would in the spirit of “bipartisanship” appoint another conservative to the court to keep from changing the current philosophical makeup of the Court! For me the disappointment with Obama is so palpable that the bile in my throat threatens to set me off into a hacking cough. The really sad part is this: when Carter lost the support of a large majority of his party, he faced an opponent (Kennedy) in the primaries. The likelihood of this happening to Obama is virtually nil. Can you imagine the outcry from the centrists and African-Americans if anyone dared to primary Obama in 2011/2012? The party would divide and disintegrate along racial factions and corporatist/progressive boundaries, and the Republicans would waltz into the Whitehouse no matter who their candidate was, even Caribou Barbie! We are screwed. We have a wimp, liar for a president, and he just laughs at us when we decry his conservatism because he knows we cannot do anything about it within our own party.

Those who call for a new Progressive party have the right idea, but the problem there is that the Tea Party branch of the Republican party will continue to vote for Republicans, while Progressives will split off from the Corporate Democrat Party, allowing the Republicans to win. So, as I said, we’re just screwed. How sad. How dismal. What a waste my vote, money, and activism was in 2008. And now, we hope and pray for the re-election of Harry Reid! He, who accused Obama of being a weak leader; he, who ranks among the weakest Senate Majority Leaders of all time!

Woe unto us. Citibank is very happy with their continued ability to keep real democracy from gaining the foothold they initially feared when Obama won the Democratic nomination. Now they know, he’s one of them, and for the foreseeable future, nothing is going to change. So much for Change We Can Believe In….

Wow, such consumer remorse. You guys really think Hillary would have been different? Come on. Obama surrounded himself with the very same people her husband did. Also, since when did we become a monarchy? You do realize that we can elect people other than the royal family, right? It’s always easy to look back and say “Undoubtably she’d never have made X or Y mistake..” but you’re fooling yourselves. Just like with Obama. He let us down, she’d have let us down.

Everything I’ve heard is that Hillary is very much an aristocrat and by no means a salt of the earth sort of person. She’s just as arrogant and self-serving as any aristocrat. She’s above everyone else. She was pulled over by my professor when he husband was governor of Arkansas. Just like a base commander’s wife in the military, she felt that any right of her husband’s was her’s as well. Arrogant wench.

Sorry, I have no time to be disillusioned by another DINO.

Hillary.. Just as bad as electing another Bush. You do realize there are millions of other families in this country, right? Hey, start working on Chelsea’s campaign next, lemmings.

Fair assertion wirerat, I don’t know. I sure wouldn’t feel like I was had by a con man Sinclair Lewis warned us 90 years ago to look out for. Truth is, I don’t know whether Gore would have been a better President than “Chauncey”. After all, he did select Donna Brazile to run his campaign, and he couldn’t even carry his own state where they certainly knew him better than I did. But, that sure doesn’t lessen my wish that Gore had won. (And, no, I don’t feel any better having “Clarence Thomas” Obama in the White House than I did “Chauncey”.)
ps. I don’t expect anything less than arrogance & narcissism of our leaders, and no, that’s not a complement.
pps. Lemming? Perhaps. Till the day I die I’ll wonder what kind of President John Jr. might have been. :>))

Of course the most aggravating thing Hill Democrats did this year is, after proving they could use a reconciliation bill (the 2009 bill actually) to pass their dogfood of a healthcare bill, they didn’t pass a budget resolution THIS year so they don’t get a filibuster-proof reconciliation bill.

As Jon wrote a few months ago, The potential progressive use of reconciliation goes well beyond possibly creating a public option. There are many “budget related” reforms that our country needs that may have majority support in the Senate, but probably can’t get 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.

The Republican strategy this year is as subtle as a B-52 raid, block anything that could possibly help the Democrat at midterms. A reconciliation bill is the only tool Senate Democrats have to move their agenda on a majority vote basis. So naturally they took it off the table. Have they offered even a halfway coherent explanation for this?

Honestly, the only way the filibuster rule is going to change is if the House recognize the truth of Anthony Weiner’s words, “the Republicans are our opposition but the Senate is our enemy”. Reconciliation wasn’t added by a change in Senate rules, it was part of the 1974 budget reform law,which of course required passage by the House and Senate. The House could launch a “filibuster” of its own, refusing to consider any Senate bill or vote out any conference committee report until the Senate agrees to a House bill to extend reconciliation process beyond budget bills to all other bills as well. If nothing else, that would move the Senate off the mark to reform its own rules instead of allowing the House tell it what to do.

Senate confirmation votes are required for presidentially appointed Article III judges (as opposed to Article I magistrate judges) and for the president’s senior officers (such as cabinet heads, but not necessarily for “inferior officers” like subcabinet posts). So the Senate is free to filibuster all the judges and cabinet secretaries it wants, but the House could insist on new legislation that, going forward, assistant secretaries and all other “inferior officers” be appointed by their respective cabinet secretary boss without need of Senate confirmation.

I don’t think it’s as the author says, I think they just want to be sure they can use the filibuster whenever they want when they’re in the minority.

How is it that ay right thinking person can support either of our major political parties? The Republican’s spent like Democrats last time around and the Democrats are not about to be outdone, so they’re spending like drunken sailors (with apologies to the Navy). Bush kept us in the dark about a lot of things including the price of HIS war in Iraq. The Democrats are concerned about spending only to the point they don’t want us to find out. They’re not even proposing a budget!

We have become prisoners of their “ideology” differences in our own country. Ideology has just come to mean financial supporters – this group of politicians, both sides, has pandered to the money interests.

They set their own rules, just like the City Manager in Bell, setting his own salary in secret. Lobbiests are welcomed with open arms (and palms outstretched). Lobbying is nothing more than Bribery. Those who make the rules get to define the terms, so it becomes “legal bribery.” The impact is the same – Votes for Rent.

Wake up! The house (and senate) is on fire!

Those now in office are good at raising money. That’s how they got there. That’s all they’re good at, but so long as they’re setting the rules, that’s all they have to be good at. One campaign blends into the next into perpetuity.

We let this happen. Every single issue voter out there would be ashamed of themselves if they had a lick of sense. They have an ideology – one they are willing to sell their (and our) souls for. So what if Senator Mr. X is a crook – at least he’s pro-choice.

We are long past the time to clean house and are approaching the time to tear it down and rebuild from scratch.

The solution is just like the solution to our drug problems – Take the money out of the game. Decriminalize soft drugs and you wipe out the money incentive. Dealers aren’t selling for an ideology – they’re selling for massive, easy profits. Politicians are not running for an ideology – they’re running for the power and control of the public treasury.

Ever wonder why it now costs so much to run for political office? It’s the cost of advertising. Who benefits from all the money spent on advertising by politicians – Communication Companies. Who reports the game and is responsible for promoting year round poitical campaigns – the very same Communication Companies. All they did was expand their market. They created the political crisis to expand their market. Period.

I’m all for free speech, but free speech must be tempered so those with a louder voice don’t drowned out the others entitled to express their positions and opinions. This cannot be done while the financial floodgates are open.

Wanna solve this – Restrict political contributions to individuals. Make it a generous, publicly disclosed, personal limit on contributions, but eliminate PAC money, corporate money, soft money and union money. Make it illegal for anyone except individuals to lobby their own members of congress. It’s time for them to be beholden to us instead of the other way around.

Deals – deals – and more deals. Odd bedfellows is one thing, but the deals must end. Take Health Care reform – The problem lies in the $20 asprin and the $48,000 overnight stay in a hospital. It’s a cost issue. Private, for profit, hospitals are the rule. They run at about a 60% occupancy rate. We get to pay for their excess inventory of unoccupied bed space. The cost issue isn’t about 6 figure salaries for doctors – Its about 7 figure salaries for insurance executives.

Nothing was done to address the cost issue. Instead of Health Care Reform – we got health insurance reform. The providers cut a backroom deal at the White House to keep their phoney – baloney price structure in place, diverting their responsibility to pay for their excesses to the insurance industry. Nobody likes insurance companies – so they’re an easy target. We only deal with insurance companies when we have a problem. Their job is to limit the number of claims to maintain their profitability. We’re not in a good frame of mind when we have to deal with them and they have become far too clever for their own good at screwing customers with legitimate claims. They are a big easy target. However, they are only part of the problem.

Unless and until we deal with COST at the source, we’ll never be able to afford universal health care. I’m not really ready to give up my benefits so someone who has never worked to earn benefits can take the hospital bed I need, and paid for.

Who ever sanctioned the idea of just two political parties? They have both gone to the dogs. Every day – in every way – we are becoming servants of the government. With public unions as their lapdogs, we are all becoming second hand citizens, subject to the whims of the “public servants.” Without any doubt, they will be on our butt to pay their pensions forever – without so much as a thank you.

It’s long past time to plain old fashion fire half of ‘em.

Reduce the federal government to its lawful functions of minting the money, providing for the common defense and delivering the mail. (No, I’m not interested in paying you to stay home and look after your grandmother!)

No one should be able to tell me how to spend my money unless they have some of their own at risk. They must have some skin in the game.

Voting in the US was originally limited to male landowners, the reasoning being those without anything to risk would simply pass the buck on to those with assets to tax. This practice is still alive and active in Water Districts throughout the US (except for the male part). Want to build a new water system, ask those who are going to pay for it – the landowners. Wouldn’t work for executive elections, but would work for tax issues. If you are a negative payer – you don’t get to decide how much I pay. If you take – you don’t get a say in how much – you get a chance to say “thank you” not “I’m entitled to this and more.” Wanna live like a crud and not produce anything for society – live on crumbs.

A little truth in advertising wouldn’t hurt – Break a political promise and a self enacting recall is set. No petition, no other action would be necessary. Promise the world with a fence around it and fail to deliver – then your butt is on the line tomorrow.

You’re not going to get any of this by sitting on your butt bitching about the “other” party. If you take an honest look at what the Democrats and the Republicans have done – you wouldn’t want to be associated with either of these groups of theives and liars. Truth in Politics starts with a little Truth in Self. It’s time for all of us to toughen up and take charge of our own fate.

Better rant then Jane’s on marijuana, Doc. But, the best alternative is not to shun both Parties, it’s to shun ALL Incumbents. When the Dems threw us under the bus with HCR, I realized we don’t have ONE Democratic Senator who will stand firm on the ideological principals that have defined the Partyy for decades, not one. When the Repubs decide decide they’re best strategy is obstruction, what more needs to be said. I’ve told the Dem. Party I will no longer campaign, fundraise, organize or vote for them. They could care less, I’m one person.
But, come Nov., if people break the astounding track records the message will be loud and clear. I don’t care who’s running against Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer, they deserve to be defeated. They’ve failed us miserably, period. THIS is the only possible way I know of for us to change the system.