Does it matter if you vote or not since corporations can spend as much money as they want to buy any election? Are your cherished notions about truth and freedom mere illusions? Are you being suckered by both parties who are playing 'good cop-bad cop' with you?



There is really no big difference between Democrat and Republican Incumbent Politicians.
Unfortunately, the only major difference between the IN-PARTY and OUT-PARTY are the two equally destructive extremes that each go to:

Extreme #1: One extreme wants regressive taxation, unfettered capitalism, little (if any) government regulations, and freedom to explore and wallow in almost every manifestation of unchecked greed.

Extreme #2: The other extreme wants a nanny-state with citizens increasingly dependent on the government; with massive cradle-to-grave government programs (which are usually severely mismanaged) that nurture a sense of entitlement and dependency on government; tries to disguise envy and jealousy as demands for equality; wants to grow government ever larger (despite the already current nightmare proportions); rewards failure and laziness; and perpetuates the myth that we can somehow all live at the expense of everyone else.

Other than those two equally destructive extremes above, consider the numerous destructive similarities . . .


They are both FOR-SALE. Most (if not all) of the incumbents politicians in BOTH parties are irresponsible and unaccountable. But it's not hard to see why, when too many of the 200 million eligible voters repeatedly reward incumbent politicians with very cu$hy 85% to 90% re-election rates.


Incumbents (of both parties) prevent newcomers to Congress from passing badly-needed, common-sense, no-brainer reforms. Incumbent politicians tempt, pressure, and threaten newcomers with loss of their party support if newcomers don't do as they are told. Since incumbents politicians always outnumber the newcomers, newcomers usually succumb to the status quo. Incumbent politicians perpetuate the status quo, and block any reforms that would reduce their power, opportunities for self-gain, or the security of their cu$hy, coveted incumbencies. Incumbent politicians abuse their perk$ of office, and spend a lot of their time (on-the-job) campaigning and trolling for money for their campaign war-chests. And there are some people that abuse vast amounts of money and wealth to control government.


They both talk out of both sides of their mouth (like Pat Paulsen once said: "Assuming either the Left Wing or Right Wing gained control of the country, it would probably fly around in circles").


They both rarely take on tough issues. That's why the nation's pressing problems continue to grow in number and severity.


#They both can do one thing very quickly; quicker than anything else: give themselves another raise (10 times in the last 12 years between 1997 and 2009), while our troops go without armor, medical care, and promised benefits; while many others are suffering, have no medical insurance, have no affordable healthcare, and some people are starving and dying; while there were massive layoffs and a recession.


They both pander and make promises they can't or won't keep, and do almost anything it takes to get re-elected (especially, when it comes to promising new, vast, enormous, and extremely costly entitlement systems); bribing voters with the voters' own money.


They both perpetuate the myth that we can all live at the expense of everyone else. Unfortunately, voters are easily bribed with their own money, and continue to reward and re-elect those very same irresponsible incumbent politicians.


They both know how to make it appear as though they're doing very hard and complex work (like rocket science), while actually doing very little (if anything, since they're spending a lot of time working to merely get re-elected). That is why the call it the Do-Nothing Congress.


They both can grow and grow and grow government to nightmare proportions, and invent new regressive systems to squeeze the middle class. A mere 1% of the U.S. population owns 40% of all wealth (up from 20% in year 1980). 1 in 5 persons own 83% of all wealth in the U.S.


They both can skillfully ignore the many pressing problems facing the nation, while appearing to be doing something about it.


They both can vote for more pork-barrel faster than you can say "pork-barrel".


They both are experts at seducing people to participate in the divisive, petty, circular, partisan politics, labels, name calling, and other clever tactics (e.g. level of wealth, race, color, religion, party affiliation, etc.) to distract the people from the important issues. But we, the voters, keep rewarding, re-electing, and empowering them.


They both successfully continue to distract the people from the real root problem: irresponsible government ... and, some how (amazingly) repeatedly convince the people to vote for them again and again; to enjoy, on average since 1980, a cu$hy 96.5% seat-retention rate.


They both abuse their wealth and power to control others. 90% of all elections are won by the candidate that spends the most money. 83% of all federal campaign donations ($200 or more in 2002) come from a mere 0.3% of the 200 million eligible U.S. voters. How fair is that to the remaining 99.7% of the 200 million eligible U.S. voters? Government is FOR-SALE, and most (if not all) of our politicians are bought-and-paid for by a very few that control and influence government.


They both are experts at deception, clouding the issues, skirting the issues, avoiding questions, being on all sides of the issues, obscuring the facts, answering questions with non-sequiturs or changing the subject, and talk-talk-talk, while accomplishing little (certainly less than possible, that is . . . but, perhaps, it depends on what the definition of "is" is).


They both make a handsome incomes (not to mention being able to give themselves annual rai$e$). Are the voters getting their money's worth ?


They both like to tax, spend, borrow, and print more money as much as possible. It's like shootin' pork in a barrel.


They both like to grow the National Debt ever larger, every year, for the past 45 years.


They both like to create perk$ for themselves, paid by tax payers, that are superior to those received by the tax payers (such as their cu$hy multi-million dollar pen$ion$).


They both pretend to care deeply for the increasingly unaffordable and unreliable health care crisis, while doing nothing to solve the problem. Why should they? They're covered by their cu$hy benefits paid for by the tax payers. The problem will never be solved until the middlemen (i.e. government and health insurance companies) are removed from the equation, and people begin to pay the health-care providers directly.


They both know little (if anything) about designing, creating, or building things. They like to contract those things out to their buddies (with a kick-back of cour$e).


They both rarely took, or paid any attention in college to Economics-101. That's obvious.


They both pretend that homeland security is important, while both do nothing to secure the wide-open borders that are trespassed by thousands daily.


They both pretend to be concerned, but do nothing about the looming bankruptcy of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) with a $450 billion dollar shortfall, which could affect about 44 million Americans.


They both refuse to punish the companies and employers that illegally lure and employ illegal trespassers to the U.S., despite the lives that are endangered on both sides: (1) those that risk their lives to illegally trespass, and (2) those that risk their lives to secure the borders to stop illegal trespassers, and the illegal trespassers that endanger and burden our law enforcement, our hospitals, welfare, education systems. They also bring crime and disease with them. And subsequent crimes by illegal trespassers are crimes that should have never happened.


They both spend much of their time raising money for their next election, and dreaming of ways to make their cu$hy, coveted, incumbent seats more secure. That doesn't leave much time for doing the work of the people or addressing any of these pressing problems.


They both voted for some questionable items in the Patriot Act that violate the rights of the people.


They both are guilty of trying to block access to voting ballots and election debates by independent and third party candidates (e.g. Ralph Nader 2004). That's unconstitutional, but the exclusionary-main-parties are getting away with it, as they limit the choices to just the Republicans and Democrats.


They both perpetuate the myth that we have a real democracy, when we really only have a very extremely limited set of choices (by design) provided by the two main-parties, that make it difficult or impossible for independent or 3rd party candidates to participate in debates or get on voting ballots.


They both are quite skilled at negative campaigning.


They both reject Election/Campaign/Finance Reform. Unfortunately, government is for sale, and influenced by some elite that abuse vast wealth and power.


They both often fall victim to the "jelly-brain" disease shortly after being elected to office, and some forget their campaign promises (e.g. "read my lips").


They both reject term limits.


They both often look the other way when they see corruption, for fear that their skeletons will be drug out of the closet too. But, even if they get caught and convicted, they'll receive a very short sentence (or probation), or get a pardon (e.g. like Bill Clinton pardoned lots of felons), and they will still receive their cu$hy multi-million dollar pensions (just like Dan Rostenkowski did, who pled guilty, but still received a pardon from Bill Clinton).


They both reject transparency, which is needed for increased accountability and responsibility (three dirty words in politics).


They both really don't want to get rid of the filibuster; it's a great time-waster (e.g. such as filibusters in the 1960's to block voting on civil rights, filibusters in the 2000's to block circuit judge appointments, etc.).


They both really don't want to cut spending; that goes against the plan of growing government ever bigger and bigger.


They both want the Federal Reserve to print more and more money. The Federal Reserve is printing too much money and increasing inflation. We have a bad monetary system. The M3 Money Supply grew from $135 Billion in year 1950 to $10.15 Trillion in year 2005. That is an increase by a factor of 75.2 ! Today, interest alone on the $13,534,486,834,918 National Debt is over $1 billion per day! The government is printing hundreds of billions of new money per year, and borrowing the rest. Our fiat funny-money monetary system represents nothing more than a dishonest form of hidden taxation. It is a pyramid-scheme. When the government can print money at will, and does so irresponsibly (which it does), it is no different than a counterfeiter who illegally prints currency. Our fiat funny-money monetary system especially hurts savers and those on fixed incomes, who find the value of their dollars steadily being eroded by the Fed's irresponsible, non-stop printing presses. At only 4.5% inflation, $100 becomes $63.50 in 10 years, and $35.43 in 20 years. That is why the double-digit inflation of the 1980's was so devastating, and what is making investors in the debt nervous. To really understand why the dishonest fiat funny-money monetary system is so popular among some utopian economists, the business community, bankers, and government officials (especially), you need to understand how it gives them the power and influence. It puts money in their hands, first, early in the circulation cycle, before the currency loses its value due to inflation. This dishonest fiat funny-money system shifts the losses to others that don't understand how they are being cheater. The poor and those dependent on fixed incomes can't keep up with the rising cost of living, and median incomes continue to fall.


They both really don't want Tax Reform. They like all of those deductions, tax shelters, and loop-holes. Who gets the most benefit from all of those tax shelters and loop-holes?


They both really have no plan to ever pay down the National Debt; they are relying only on induced inflation and growth to reduce the continually growing National Debt; without discipline also, and government's track-record of growing the National Debt every year of the last 45 years, the problem could easily grow out of control (if it hasn't already); currently, it would take 222 years at only 2.5% interest to pay off only 33% of the the total National Debt, and that would also require government to stop borrowing $1.3+ billion per day, much less, start paying down $1.3 billion per day, to merely keep the debt from growing larger.


They both (mostly) voted for the unnecessary wars in Iraq, Vietnam, and Korea, etc. When things go badly, they simply blame each other.


They both ignore the needs of the truly needy, because they simultaneously spend a lot of time voting for more pork-barrel, more raises and perk$ for themselves, and writing hot checks at the tax payers expense. In fact, in order to avoid the embarrassing publicity when they vote themselves raises, they made the raises automatic, thereafter. Thus, they now get their raises automatically, unless they explicitly vote to reject their raises. Hell of a deal, eh ? Perhaps the voters should have more control over these salaries and raises ?


They both revel in the fact that the people are too resigned to the futility, despair, and complacency to do this One-Simple thing to restore a balance of power (not simply shift it) between the people and the government. They both hope this is the one thing the people never discover (i.e. hold them all responsible, as a single entity, because that may be the only way to ever get them to finally police their own ranks, and also encourage their peers to be more responsible too). There are two classes in this country:
(a) One class that derives concentrated power from its concentrated wealth.
(b) And, the other class that has power only in numbers, and it is largely ineffective due to their inability to organize.


They both are unable to tell us where the money will come from to pay the interest on the $57 Trillion nation-wide debt, much less the money to reduce the principal $54 Trillion of nation-wide debt, when that money does not yet exist, and 80% of the U.S. population owns only 17% of all wealth in the U.S.


It's unlikely Congress will reform itself voluntarily.
Especially when Congress is repeatedly rewarded with perpetual re-election for ignoring reforms.
Government will not become more responsible and accountable until the voters do too.

Only the people (i.e. the voters) can provide the incentive to become more responsible and finally begin to solve the many
serious problems facing the nation.

The people must reject the petty partisan politics, labels, party bigotry, and other clever mechanisms used as a clever distraction from the fact that government is failing the people, and we're all failing ourselves by not only allowing, but empowering and enabling those in government to continue to be too irresponsible, and continue to avoid tackling tough problems for fear of risking re-election.

Until then, we will probably continue to crap in our own nest.
The only caveat is that some of us are getting crapped on more than others (as evidenced by these
10 abuses and the painful consequences).



Views: 29

Comment by Bill on September 15, 2010 at 11:52am
While I agree that the party system is horrible, it is the system we have. Still, I think the differences between parties is more significant than your post implies. Yes, they are the same in myriad ways. But let me make an analogy to emphasize my point that their differences are important.

If our system of government is a 747, and administrations are the pilot, then obviously each administration must have many things in common regarding how they do their business. In fact, that aspect needs to be almost exactly the same. But the one difference of direction is more important than all those other considerations.

I know this is a weak analogy, and I to agree we must have more than 2 choices. But we must also insure that the electorate is educated enough to make intelligent choices. We could elect a leader who will fly us into a mountain.
Comment by willailla on September 15, 2010 at 12:42pm
Pj, thanks, and a new movement is needed. Unfortunately the only such movement now is the Tea Party.

Vespertilio, I think you're spot on. A third party can't happen and creating a third world nation is the goal of both parties.

Bill, Well, of course, 'direction' is important, but aren't both parties headed the same way? I definitely agree that 'education' is the answer, but the US has one of the worse educational systems among the advanced nations--and it's not by accident.
Comment by Lindsey on September 15, 2010 at 1:19pm
Well, stupid leaders are elected by stupid people. A disgustingly large majority of U.S. citizens don't actually give a damn about what the politicians are actually saying and promising as long as they have the right R or D by their name. And they vote for the most arbitrary and pointless reasons too. Someone actually told me once that they voted for John McCain because they liked the way Sarah Palin dressed. These are the people who elect our leaders. Be afraid.
Comment by Bill on September 15, 2010 at 1:26pm
Willailla, What we are truly dealing with here is fascism or corporatocracy. And those with the corporate power are only concerned with their own profits. I don't agree that both parties are headed the same way. But their actual power, or lack there of, may make the point moot.
Comment by willailla on September 15, 2010 at 2:15pm
Lindsey: right as rain. Cristine O'Donnell [R] just won her primary in Delaware and whom did she thank? Sarah Palin. You're right. Stupid is as stupid does.

Bill: you're absolutely right. America is a corporatocracy. Yes 'direction' is moot--we've already arrived. Where did I leave my jackboots?

James: Yeah, who the hell do you vote for? This state of affairs is pathetic. I agree with everything you've said. We're screwed!
Comment by Bill on September 15, 2010 at 2:57pm
I've served in the Marines for 29 years, and I feel I have done my part for the country. Is it really too much to ask of my fellow citizens to cast a thoughtful vote? My assessment of the situation matches everyone else who has commented on this blog, but I refuse to retreat! This must be what it felt like to be one of Custer's lieutenants.
Comment by willailla on September 15, 2010 at 3:15pm
That famous day in history the men of the 7th Cavalry went riding on
And from the rear a voice was heard
A brave young man with a trembling word rang loud and clear...
What am I doin' here??

Please Mr. Custer, I don't wanna go
Hey, Mr. Custer, please don't make me go
I had a dream last night about the comin' fight
Somebody yelled "attack!"
And there I stood with a arrow in my back.
Comment by Bill on September 15, 2010 at 3:50pm
James, Willailla, that's good stuff!
Comment by Becca on September 15, 2010 at 8:42pm
I'm seriously considering abstaining from voting in national elections from now on. It's all the same shit different piles both parties are running us into the ground I'm tired of voting for people who don't deserve it because they are the best of two evils. At least in local elections where I live third parties (especially the green party) have a chance so I'll support them when I can vote for them.
Comment by Atheist Exile on September 16, 2010 at 1:26am
According to my observations, atheists are mostly liberal, Democrats, and VERY anti-Republican. Even otherwise level-headed members will turn extremist and spew anti-Republican vitriol. For these folks, it's not good enough to be a Democrat . . . you need to be a liberal, Republican-hating, Democrat.

I share much of your views where American politics are concerned. Both parties are untrustworthy and their representatives care more about their careers than about their politics.

The Republican party appears to be in self-destruct mode -- that's what happens when you court religious fundamentalists. But, despite the vast Christian majority in the U.S., the Republicans are, by far, the smaller party. This tells me there are more Christian Democrats than there are Christian Republicans . . . and that being Christian doesn't mean you're automatically anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-intellectual or anti-science.

Both parties are beholden to Big Business. Trust in either party is delusional.


You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service