there will always bee greed (0.00 / 0)

that old cliche "money talks" still holds true today.  there will always be the haves and the haves not.  we can't compete with this kind of money and power and regardless of who is President, the financial esblishment will always run the government.  They can put on a face for the American people, but behind the scene will never change.  its about what can I get for my vote or support.  And of course, where will I end up after my politcal career.  Financial positioning is the name of the game in Washington.  

---

by: RR @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 14:27:43 PM UTC

Nothing can be done, everbody cry. (4.00 / 3)

In fact, as we all know, Monarchs still govern every kingdom, slaves still fill the holds of ships on the ocean, serfs still dig the hard ground with their bleeding fingers. "Give Up" the famous slogan of the triumphant British Troops marching into Washington in 1776, 1796 1814 1856 and of course the famous crushing of the slave rebellion in 1866.

Weep- Ins have been a part of the national culture since the famous dirty hippie mass suicides in the 1960's. It is time for another mass Weep In some of forgotten how hopeless it is and need a reminder.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 14:50:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What disempowering drivel (4.00 / 1)

Nothing like giving up before you even start to fight. Why do you bother posting here?

---

by: RandomNonviolence @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 16:18:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What we need to stop the illegal accumulation of wealth and the looting of the U.S. Treasury (4.00 / 2)

is a democratic form of government.

It comes as no surprise that Goldman Sachs is using $40+ bilion of taxpayers' bailout money received directly from the the federal government and indirectly from AIG to pay even bigger bonuses to its executives.

Nor does it come as any surprise that Obama hired two Wall Street insiders, Gaithner and Summers, to supervise the transfer of $12.8 trillion in bailout money to their cronies like Goldman Sachs on Wall Street.

That's because Obama received tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions from these same Wall Street banks and investment houses - especially Goldman Sachs - during his first election bid, and he will need as much and even more money from them during his second election bid.

The same can be said for Congress and the lawmakers who voted to give the the money to insolvent banks and financial institutions like Goldman Sachs, since they also received substantial campaign contributions from the banking and financial sector.

A form of government in which elected officials are beholden to their corporate campaign contributors and sacrifice the interests of their constituents to the special interests of their contributors is a plutocracy, not a democracy.

What we need is a democracy, a form of government in which the citizens, not corporate special interests, control the government.

Instead of wringing our hands and beseeching elected representatives to enact the popular will into law even though they have sold their votes to their corporate campaign contributors, we need to get real and recognize that we have to change our form of government from a plutocracy into a democracy.

I have spent the past five years inventing ways to use the Internet to do this, which I have written about in  Re-Inventing Democracy: How U.S. Voters Can Get Control of Government.

But here's an even quicker technology-based solution to get legislation that reflects the popular will instead of special interests on major pieces of legislation like health care reform and the treatment of corrupt financial behemoths like Goldman Sachs.

I have read that countries like Brazil let voters vote via their ATM machines and even email. We could set up a similar as well as incorruptible technology-based system that gives every voter the means to register his or her vote on major pieces of pending legislation.

Every voter could be asked to vote his or her preference on pending legislation at every major decision point so as to instruct the voter's representative as to how to vote. The system would tally the votes pro and con and send the results to the voters' representative.

The system would also tally the results for all districts and publish online the overall tallies so that everyone in the country and all elected representatives would know where the country's electorate stands on pending legislation as it moves through the legislative process.

Needless to say, our current crop of elected representatives and federal election agencies could not be trusted to implement such a system without screwing it up so that it wouldn't work, just like they did with the Help American Vote Act.

So such a system would have to be developed and managed by citizens themselves.

But it could be done.

Boy, would it turn things around in a hurry. The Max Baucuses, Ben Nelsons and Kent Conrads who are defying the will of 70% of the American people by leading efforts to scuttle the public option, just like they scuttled the single payer option, would find themselves headed for defeat if they dared oppose the will of the people.

They would be targeted for defeat and their opponents would be inundated with campaign contributions not only from their own constituents but from voters throughout the country whose will they had defied.

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 17:39:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I won't call the campaign a con job ... (4.00 / 3)

but what strikes me .. is how Obama was sold as something he really wasn't .. what I took away from his book is that he really does believe he can "bring everyone together" ... that he wants to be liked by everyone .. and also .. that he aches for approval from the rich and powerful(just my putting 2 and 2 together) ... also .. yes .. he does seem to have patience of a saint .. but sometimes quicker decisive action is better(especially as it related to what Mike is talking about) .. I guess the thing that bothers me .. and it kind of shows in Obama too .. is why Presidents seem so focused on International affairs .. and yet almost always drop the ball on domestic affairs

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 14:35:17 PM UTC

Exactly and well said. (4.00 / 2)

Fight the good fight, Mr. President, and there will be tens of millions of us who will fight it with you. Avoid these fights, and your Presidency will be adrift, with neither set of allies fighting for you or big legislative victories.

America needs Leadership.

This is actually what Obama does best. He leads and inspires. Obama was elected not because people thought he could be a Walmart manager, he was not elected to rearrange the staff at some dysfunctional branch plant. He was chosen, and is respected, because he has principles and has inspired us. We trust his gut.

He apparently worries that his parties ability to overcome its self serving, regional, corrupt and conservative habits are too much for what he knows should be done and what the public demands.

If Obama alienates some of the democratic party caucus by leading, he will at the same increase his popularity. FDR got New Deal Democrats to replace Democrats who wouldn't support his programs. This is the situation we face today. Corruption has such a hold on the mass of congress that something demanded by 80% of the people is in very real danger of being destroyed by lobbyist and campaign money controlled Democrats.

A majority of Americans could care less if no Health Insurance company sold another policy ever again. Over 80% want "at least" a public option of cheaper comprehensive health insurance for all. What America wants is the people wanting to be disgustingly rich get the F04# out the way so they can see a doctor. For example.

If Obama leads on public healthcare America will join him.

He is NOT leading now.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 14:43:18 PM UTC

I see your point (4.00 / 1)

But, if Obama did not learn this:

"...his parties ability to overcome its self serving, regional, corrupt and conservative habits are too much for what he knows should be done and what the public demands."

while cutting his political teeth in Chicago Illinois, he's not as bright as he seems. I suspect he knows all of that very well, but is not willing to confront it. He is not naive.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 15:59:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Or, I think he has learned possibly too well in Chicago. (0.00 / 0)

Getting along to get it done, is the watchword of Chicago. It isnt as if Chicago doesn't get things done, many fine outcomes, only somewhat corrupted by passing through the 'what's in it for me' culture exemplified so well by Blogo, ("This is GOLD!!! I'm not going to just let it go for nothing!!"). His estimation of the self serving, pocket lining, quid pro quo asshats may be all too accurate.

The question is whether his 'maturity' about the 'way thinmgs are' is selling the country short. If we do not, can not, clean up the banking, health insurance, tobacco, communications trusts that steer and manipulate the country so completely now, we will descend into barbarism whose only cure is unthinkable.

Concerted, organized opposition, the promotion of New Deal Democrats and an engaged citizenship is necessary and possible.

Let me repeat that

"an engaged citizenship is necessary and possible."

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 19:02:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree (0.00 / 0)

Clearly President Obama is not providing the necessary leadership on "cleaning up" the "special" interests that you cite. Perhaps the lesson he "learned too well" is that its better not to get between the corporate plutocrats and their profits, even if it is right, necessary, and supported by most of his fellow citizens.

If Obama is not willing to lead, then perhaps the "engaged" citizens should find someone that is willing to provide that leadership.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 19:21:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The people to remove are in the congress. (4.00 / 1)

That is where we need to put our combined and individual efforts.

There is nothing to gain by altering the President. He is as disappointing as we knew he would be, and as good as we expected. Congress is worse than we expected and far easier to change, even as difficult as it is. What we need is New Deal Democrats, and an end to corporate contributions to elected officials.

We also need to break up the trusts, so they don't the power to dictate to democratically elected governments.

Single payer is off the table my ass.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 19:35:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not all "leaders" are Presidents (0.00 / 0)

I guess I should have been more clear.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 20:21:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Gotcha. And I agree. Although if Obama wakes up tommorrow with (0.00 / 0)

a recognition of what America needs him to do, and not what he thinks is possible without struggle, then we would have a leader, the leader, we need right now.

And if truth be told, he would be the leader I hoped, but did not expect.

Mr. President we cannot wait for FDR's second term.  

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 20:30:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I hate to break the news to you, Mike (4.00 / 6)

You write:

You have to decide which side you are on, Mr. President

Obama already already made that decision when he whipped for TARP, which gave $700 billion dollars to the banksters with no transparency and no accountability.  If it wasn't clear then, should have been clear when Timmy and Larry got their jobs. And if it wasn't clear then, it should be clear now.

Back in October, when TARP was passed, Obama had all the leverage in the world. He was the Democratic nominee, and the presumptive President -- since McCain started to collapse after Lehman -- and what did he do with it for us? Zip. Zilch. Nada.  

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 16:04:18 PM UTC

Small copy point... (4.00 / 1)

You wrote:

"the struggling tens of millions barely hanging on, or not hanging on at all, in this dreadful economy"

What strikes me is that, in truth, it is the 98% of Americans who are not wealthy and will never be wealthy against the 1% or maybe 2% that are wealthy and have received out-sized benefits for the past 30 years. By wealth, I mean people who have over $5 million in assets, regardless of any income and especially if it is trust fund wealth rather than first generation wealth.

So it is "the struggling 98% of Americans barely hanging on, or not hanging on at all, in this dreadful economy". The numbers are that big. Even if you have a job, you might not in a few months or a year. And every lost job affects families and communities, brings them down. Only the wealthy can avoid this effect.

When phrased this way, the issue focuses on the fact that wealth for almost all of us is out of the question. We're not wealthy. We won't be wealthy. So how do you arrange the economy so that we can have good jobs, raise and care for our families, provide for a decent retirement? How do we live meaningful lives when the media and our culture worship money and excess? While I expect politicians to be corrupt and grubby, our larger social values are totally whacked. Greed is not good except in small doses.

I'm about ready to give up on Obama. He's done a lot so far, don't get me wrong, but on key issues he refuses to step up and do the right thing for the 98% of us that have been shut out of the economy and screwed for decades. I predict he's another Jimmy Carter, a one term wonder. Except Carter has morals, knows right from wrong on these issues.

---

by: TSlavin @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 17:01:06 PM UTC

If criticism of Obama's lack of progressive vison and strength causes (4.00 / 1)

the election of someone from the "Crazy Party" then we should be completely ashamed of ourselves for our lack of political skill and commitment.

The only thing left in this argument is a Naderite saying it's all Obama's fault that Emperor Bush III got elected.

We need to push Obama left. "We pushing left" is not someone, feeling anger and disappointment, spitting in his general direction. "We pushing left" is us working respectfully with many constituencies to drive the public into action against a self serving congress.

Tehran is, at the moment, the best, most visceral, example of a population with the courage and commitment to peacefully, intelligently use their time and smarts and connections and technology, to challenge a government that is not listening.

We not only need to encourage and assist Iranians in their struggle for democratic peaceful change, we need to learn from them how to take our lives seriously.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 19:50:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A revealing new poll.. Enjoy.. (0.00 / 0)

As I placed an ad to help sell my elderly neighbors house here in Sedona, Arizona because he can't afford to live there anymore, this new poll in the local paper caught my attention and I thought so applicable to how Americans are feeling today:

The question posed was "How often do you come face to face with a wild animal?"  (For context, Sedona residents for the most part are all crazy and either very wealthy or are like my friend and in dire straits, and, rarely has anyone ever reported "face to face" confrontations with real wild animals.)

http://www.redrocknews.com/com...

Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.

---

by: worldlymother @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 18:13:37 PM UTC

This is so far off the talking point as to appear to be spam. (0.00 / 0)

I can think of no other reason to place it here. Though for the life of me, except for driving clicks through to the local-news web pages, I see no reason for the spam.

Is Openleft so popular that even the few people falling for this and clicking though helps with someones bottom line??

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 19:40:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]