
While the candidates talk about things like a bananced budget, what goes through your mind?
For me it is a wonder that anyone believe they would do it. When the Supreme Court decided that Corporation had the right of free speech I think it is a wonder that they did not also give them the right to vote. Right now they seem to have the right, one we don’t have, to BUY the vote. Most of us can not afford to put that kind of money into our candidate.
Why do I put that little gem in there? Well, look at it this way. I would seem that the one with the most money, and best attack ads, wins. Most politicians know that a company will only give money to the one who is in the best position to help their interest. This company can even hide it behind a PAC to make it harder to determine which politician owes his soul to which interest.
Any politician, even one who is trying to do what he thinks is right, must understand that if he wants to stay in the office, or even get into one, he has to make himself attractive to the people with the money. One of the common forms of this was the earmark where they slip an extra into a bill that adds money for a local project, which would be a plus for some interest. The could even appoint a representative of that interest to a board, of some kind, that helps to govern the interest.
Remember just after Katrina hit New Orleans? We found out the only qualification the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency had was having been a fund raiser for Bush II?
The point is: as long as politicians can put things in the budget and not have to pay for the beyond printing more money, or selling some more IOU s {bonds} we should not expect to see a balanced budget in the near future. Then, when the BILL pill up so that the country is underwater they will be gone, and our descendant will be screwed.
The last reason I give for this unlikely even is one of the simplest ideas there is: anything they cut our as being more then we can pay for, or not needed, is going to be someones pet cause, and that can get you put our of office.
We need to not only watch what we do with our vote but we should watch what they do with it as well. When we hear the attack ads, or barbs cast in a debate, we should have paid enough attention to what they were doing to be able to say “thats a lie” or “thats true”. Not because he is our candidate, or because some reporter told us it was but, because we paid attention to what they said and we knew how true it was.
The FUTURE belongs to us, we should elect people for the job not because we think they will be able to defeat the opponent.
Thank you,
That Joe Guy.
Related articles
- Nancy Pelosi Lobs Attack Ad at Colbert (newser.com)
- Can Obama change the balance of the Supreme Court? (leftperspectives.com)
- But, But, But. . . .NOOOOOOOOO! (afeatheradrift.wordpress.com)
- Re-Thinking Our Country (jcsprenger.com)
- Phony Money for Worthless Promises (lewrockwell.com)
- Judge H. Lee Sarokin: Could Democracy Be Destroyed in the Name of Free Speech? (huffingtonpost.com)
- Super PACS Alter Nation’s Campaign Landscape (npr.org)
The GOP makes a big deal out of the deficit, and it plays well, especially when compared to the family. If you were in debt, you would pay it down. But you would also consider, getting a second job (taxes), investing in some education (infrastructure), as well as just cutting your budget. Good economists will tell you that a deficit is money we owe ourselves. It is not as important as the family budget. It is not “owed” to any country by and large. It is much more important to through stimulus and infrastructure investments, to get people to work so they can accumulate money, spend it, and increase the desire for products which then cause businesses to hire. Thanks for the link too!
LikeLike
Love your post on balancing the budget; of course they won’t do it because their earmarks and an occasional war keeps the military-industrial complex humming and they get reelected by ignorant voters.
LikeLike