So, complain and do nothing. Or work on a fix. Survey says: Complain and Do Nothing. Audience applause. Host kisses female contestant. Promise of a home version of Our Game. Credits.
I’m one of those who looks at both sides and sees good and bad. I’m also one of those who believes the person we vote into office should be more than ‘well he’s better than the last looser’. Obama has been an awful president. The fact that Bush may have been a worse one means nothing.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Obama just drove us a little closer.
Your question seems to assume that Big Business can’t field a candidate who can win popular election. Also, and I apologize if I am incorrect in my assumptions, I am inferring that you think Obama does not have the backing of the ‘1%’. That’s not true. He received quite a bit in financial support from Wall Street. Lastly, you seem to be expanding upon the notion that the ‘1%’ are somehow to blame or are some heartless machine. I don’t buy into that mythos, or at least not all of it. Let’s assume that the 1% are spending money to buy political power and influence (and I don’t doubt that there is some of this going on). How does that excuse any politician who accepts their funds? Obama took their funds. How is he different? And yes, the same can be said of politicians on both sides of the aisle.
I apologize for the assumption. Given the choice, I would prefer president of the people. ALL of the people. No one social group, rich or poor, should be the focus of a government.
At this point though, I would settle for a president who took responsibility for his actions. That’s something we have not had in a long, long time.
They aren’t my only criteria. My comments above were meant to be sarcastic.
Also, let me be clear on something. I’m not conservative, though I suppose I have more sympathies with them than the left. A socialist solution to a problem is not necessarily the worst one. Nor is it necessarily the best one.
One thing that baffles me is why everyone these days acts like the 1% having power is so shocking. Pretty much throughout history the rich have held power. And quite often, under their rule, things are awful for the non-rich in those situations. However, there isn’t a lot of evidence of things being any better when the poor hold power: Stalin. The Khmer Rouge. The French Revolution… none of these are what I would consider high points in human history.
I don’t think a single man or woman could reverse the situation you describe. The only way to reverse a trend like the one you describe is with a true democracy. One person, one vote. That also assumes that the great majority of the population has a basic level of education and willingness to seek after facts. As long as I’m dreaming I might as well throw in a media that stays apolitical and focuses on reporting only information and not opinion.
I digress. To answer your question, I think the reversal of the situation you describe needs to be handled by Congress/Senate. Not the president. Should the president just sit around and play with his toy boats? Absolutely not. But the solution should not be up to him.
I’ve read a few things over the years in which the writers argued that was precisely not what the founding fathers wanted to accomplish. Some of the arguments were interesting.
As to your other point, I have also heard view points expressed that there are elements in the far Left that want to establish European-style socialism. I would imagine there is some truth to both statements. But I do wholeheartedly agree that the Americas should be fostering equality.
We can argue about what ‘equality’ means, but it sounds like we both agree that there is inequality within the system. From my own point of view, the major problem these days is the two political parties. I see them as two ends of really the same ruling class. Do the rich bribe them? I don’t doubt it. But at the end of the day, it’s the party machines that are making the laws and taking the bribes. Any discussion of economic inequality is really second seat until this problem is resolved.
I didn’t see your response before. I’m saying I have read several opinions that the Founding Fathers did wish to establish a class system.
I’m not sure where you got that interpretation of my post. I’m saying that you’re arguing class differences based on wealth and that’s too narrow. There are all kinds of class differences. No I’m not saying that I would prefer a winner-take-all inequality. But I am saying that is just as likely to happen if the poor are in charge as opposed to the rich as opposed to the educated as opposed to the ignorant, etc. The two parties that are in charge now are simply each manipulating the ‘classes’ so they, the parties, can remain in power.
Don Winchester Premium Member over 10 years ago
Obamacare….one big blunder after another.
Enoki over 10 years ago
Yep, and it hits full steam right before next year’s elections….
Dave Ferro over 10 years ago
I may be wrong, but if one lost their insurance due to Obamacare, couldn’t they sue the government?
I Play One On TV over 10 years ago
So, complain and do nothing. Or work on a fix. Survey says: Complain and Do Nothing. Audience applause. Host kisses female contestant. Promise of a home version of Our Game. Credits.
warjoski Premium Member over 10 years ago
Seriously? That’s your criteria here? He’s better than Bush?
Wow. Way to reach for the stars there.
warjoski Premium Member over 10 years ago
I’m one of those who looks at both sides and sees good and bad. I’m also one of those who believes the person we vote into office should be more than ‘well he’s better than the last looser’. Obama has been an awful president. The fact that Bush may have been a worse one means nothing.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Obama just drove us a little closer.
warjoski Premium Member over 10 years ago
Your question seems to assume that Big Business can’t field a candidate who can win popular election. Also, and I apologize if I am incorrect in my assumptions, I am inferring that you think Obama does not have the backing of the ‘1%’. That’s not true. He received quite a bit in financial support from Wall Street. Lastly, you seem to be expanding upon the notion that the ‘1%’ are somehow to blame or are some heartless machine. I don’t buy into that mythos, or at least not all of it. Let’s assume that the 1% are spending money to buy political power and influence (and I don’t doubt that there is some of this going on). How does that excuse any politician who accepts their funds? Obama took their funds. How is he different? And yes, the same can be said of politicians on both sides of the aisle.
warjoski Premium Member over 10 years ago
I apologize for the assumption. Given the choice, I would prefer president of the people. ALL of the people. No one social group, rich or poor, should be the focus of a government.
At this point though, I would settle for a president who took responsibility for his actions. That’s something we have not had in a long, long time.
warjoski Premium Member over 10 years ago
Not easily placated. Just desperate.
Since part of your post was cut off, I’ll refrain from answering the rest. Please repost and I’ll be happy to reply. Thanks.
warjoski Premium Member over 10 years ago
They aren’t my only criteria. My comments above were meant to be sarcastic.
Also, let me be clear on something. I’m not conservative, though I suppose I have more sympathies with them than the left. A socialist solution to a problem is not necessarily the worst one. Nor is it necessarily the best one.
One thing that baffles me is why everyone these days acts like the 1% having power is so shocking. Pretty much throughout history the rich have held power. And quite often, under their rule, things are awful for the non-rich in those situations. However, there isn’t a lot of evidence of things being any better when the poor hold power: Stalin. The Khmer Rouge. The French Revolution… none of these are what I would consider high points in human history.
I don’t think a single man or woman could reverse the situation you describe. The only way to reverse a trend like the one you describe is with a true democracy. One person, one vote. That also assumes that the great majority of the population has a basic level of education and willingness to seek after facts. As long as I’m dreaming I might as well throw in a media that stays apolitical and focuses on reporting only information and not opinion.
I digress. To answer your question, I think the reversal of the situation you describe needs to be handled by Congress/Senate. Not the president. Should the president just sit around and play with his toy boats? Absolutely not. But the solution should not be up to him.
warjoski Premium Member over 10 years ago
I’ve read a few things over the years in which the writers argued that was precisely not what the founding fathers wanted to accomplish. Some of the arguments were interesting.
As to your other point, I have also heard view points expressed that there are elements in the far Left that want to establish European-style socialism. I would imagine there is some truth to both statements. But I do wholeheartedly agree that the Americas should be fostering equality.
We can argue about what ‘equality’ means, but it sounds like we both agree that there is inequality within the system. From my own point of view, the major problem these days is the two political parties. I see them as two ends of really the same ruling class. Do the rich bribe them? I don’t doubt it. But at the end of the day, it’s the party machines that are making the laws and taking the bribes. Any discussion of economic inequality is really second seat until this problem is resolved.
warjoski Premium Member over 10 years ago
I didn’t see your response before. I’m saying I have read several opinions that the Founding Fathers did wish to establish a class system.
I’m not sure where you got that interpretation of my post. I’m saying that you’re arguing class differences based on wealth and that’s too narrow. There are all kinds of class differences. No I’m not saying that I would prefer a winner-take-all inequality. But I am saying that is just as likely to happen if the poor are in charge as opposed to the rich as opposed to the educated as opposed to the ignorant, etc. The two parties that are in charge now are simply each manipulating the ‘classes’ so they, the parties, can remain in power.