In his commentary “The Nation of America,” Mr. Jeff Samuels’s states, the people had a purpose to make a difference for our nation and our government. I would have to disagree with his statement. The people have never truly lived up to the intent of what the Framers established as American government. It may also me naïve of us to think that the Founding Fathers of American government had all people in mind when the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights were written; but we will save that for another discussion.
The people, in many instances have let their fellow man and the nation down on several occasions. The people have relinquished their power to beaurocrats and pseudo-politicians who do not always have their best interest at heart. For the one who pays attention, politics is a game where one team wins and the other loses. The game has two big market teams, the Democrats and the Republicans. There are small market teams who begin the season with hope, but never have a chance to win, such as Independents, Libertarians, and the Green Party. Many times “The People” have absolutely no idea what is going because they are much too focused on what it takes to stay sane and support their families.
Mr. Samuels is correct, we have had a number of outstanding presidents who sought to make a difference; however, we have also had large numbers of people who have blindly followed presidents into dangerous areas. My suggestion is to hold the Obama administration to its campaign slogan of change. Every so often, we see the potential of the American people; the 2008 presidential election is one of those times. Maybe it was a glimpse of what “The Nation of America” could be.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Is America a True Democracy!
The Merriam-Webster defines the word plutocracy has government by the wealthy. A plutocracy is a government where there is very little economic equality and a resemblance of a caste system, where social mobility is limited. Some might even say the Framers established a plutocracy not a democracy by only allowing those who were white, wealthy, and landowners to participate at the advent of the United States. As the rich get richer and the poor get poorer in America the question arises, can a democracy and a plutocracy co-exist? Former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said, “We can have a democratic society or we can have the concentration of great wealth in the hands of the few. We cannot have both.”
Thomas Jefferson wrote so eloquently in the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The U.S. Constitution also becomes perversely inclusive as the first line states, “We the people of the United States…..”
The idea of America has not always lived up to its promise, as some groups have not always shared the unalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In addition, the American government has not always functioned under the auspices of deriving their powers from the consent of the governed – meaning the people. Likewise, the American people have not always lived up to its end of the bargain by participating when the opportunity afforded itself.
Over the past twenty years, two alarming trends have come into focus when evaluating the political canvass in America. The first is learned helplessness. Learned helplessness is a psychological issue that burdens a person into feeling that no matter what they do, they cannot make a difference. Therefore, why vote because my vote does not count. Apathy is the second problem. Apathy is a combination of laziness and emotional withdrawal, or a lack of caring. People do not vote or participate because they just do not care.
If America and the American people are to realize its true potential, we must stop fighting the unseen enemies of Socialism and Marxism and fight the opposition that is staring us right in the face; ourselves and the true American institution of government – Plutocracy!
Thomas Jefferson wrote so eloquently in the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The U.S. Constitution also becomes perversely inclusive as the first line states, “We the people of the United States…..”
The idea of America has not always lived up to its promise, as some groups have not always shared the unalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In addition, the American government has not always functioned under the auspices of deriving their powers from the consent of the governed – meaning the people. Likewise, the American people have not always lived up to its end of the bargain by participating when the opportunity afforded itself.
Over the past twenty years, two alarming trends have come into focus when evaluating the political canvass in America. The first is learned helplessness. Learned helplessness is a psychological issue that burdens a person into feeling that no matter what they do, they cannot make a difference. Therefore, why vote because my vote does not count. Apathy is the second problem. Apathy is a combination of laziness and emotional withdrawal, or a lack of caring. People do not vote or participate because they just do not care.
If America and the American people are to realize its true potential, we must stop fighting the unseen enemies of Socialism and Marxism and fight the opposition that is staring us right in the face; ourselves and the true American institution of government – Plutocracy!
Friday, April 24, 2009
The 21st Century Red Scare
Over the past two years, it seems as if America is experiencing the 21st century version of the “Red Scare”. However, the culprit isn’t communism any longer; it is now socialism. The GOP has always been very crafty in its propaganda tactics, when there seems to be a shift away from its political, social, and moral paradigm. Often, if the issues are looked at with constructive thinking, you will find that they are actually to divert you away from their hypocrisy.
In the blog “Remember Freedom”, the author, Elizabeth makes a very strong case that America is spiraling into the socialistic abyss. I beg to differ; The American system of capitalism is safe. The resolve of the American people will never allow one man to change its economic system without a fight. The constitution’s establishment of a checks and balance system would prevent such a thing from happening. Former President Harry Truman attempted to take over the steel industry, some would say was a “step” toward socialism, but the United States Supreme Court would not allow it.
If we look at the American Heritage Dictionary’s definition of socialism; the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government, that often plans and controls the economy. Further research will lead us to find out the socialists actually advocate a society in which wealth and power are distributed evenly based on the amount of work expended in production. Therefore the true workers have the opportunity to get equal value with the executives who are now receiving million dollar bonuses for making bad business decisions. This was one of the Blogs points, “At Plymouth everyone was supposed to work for the common good and so each would get an equal share of food. Some soon discovered, however, that they would still receive food even if they didn't work, or worked the minimum. Thus, those few hard workers had to carry the weight of the irresponsible freeloaders.” I would interject that the settlers at Plymouth were not testing socialism, but trying to survive. I would also like to point out that the Soviet Union was actually a communist nation not a socialist one. Communism basically sees no need for free enterprise, where socialism accepts it.
President Obama was faced with the decision of bailing out General Motors or letting it go bankrupt. If GM would have been allowed to fail, millions of people would have lost their jobs; thus America would not only face a bad recession but quite possibly another great depression. When a business fails, you must look for the head of the organization to take responsibility. Not doubting that Mr. Wagoner is a very good person, however he has taken the backbone of the American economy into arrested development. Mr. Wagoner has been the CEO of GM since 2000; since then, stocks have plummeted from $60 to less than $2 in March of 2009, and General Motors has suffered more than $85 million in loses. While Toyota, Honda, and Ford worked on gas-electric hybrids, Mr. Wagoner focused on SUV’s. The Obama Administration made the choice to avoid a depression by bailing out General Motors; however it would have been irresponsible to leave it in the hands of the very same leadership that led it to the present.
Elizabeth was correct, socialism isn’t American and Americans would never allow it to be either. Stephen Hess, a presidential scholar at the Brookings Institution, said Obama's action lacked any historical parallel because the circumstances of the financial crisis were unique and he could succeed because he seemed to have a good "internal gyroscope" on reading the mood of the public. "So far people are with him," Hess said. "There will be a lot of people who say: At last somebody is doing something."
In the blog “Remember Freedom”, the author, Elizabeth makes a very strong case that America is spiraling into the socialistic abyss. I beg to differ; The American system of capitalism is safe. The resolve of the American people will never allow one man to change its economic system without a fight. The constitution’s establishment of a checks and balance system would prevent such a thing from happening. Former President Harry Truman attempted to take over the steel industry, some would say was a “step” toward socialism, but the United States Supreme Court would not allow it.
If we look at the American Heritage Dictionary’s definition of socialism; the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government, that often plans and controls the economy. Further research will lead us to find out the socialists actually advocate a society in which wealth and power are distributed evenly based on the amount of work expended in production. Therefore the true workers have the opportunity to get equal value with the executives who are now receiving million dollar bonuses for making bad business decisions. This was one of the Blogs points, “At Plymouth everyone was supposed to work for the common good and so each would get an equal share of food. Some soon discovered, however, that they would still receive food even if they didn't work, or worked the minimum. Thus, those few hard workers had to carry the weight of the irresponsible freeloaders.” I would interject that the settlers at Plymouth were not testing socialism, but trying to survive. I would also like to point out that the Soviet Union was actually a communist nation not a socialist one. Communism basically sees no need for free enterprise, where socialism accepts it.
President Obama was faced with the decision of bailing out General Motors or letting it go bankrupt. If GM would have been allowed to fail, millions of people would have lost their jobs; thus America would not only face a bad recession but quite possibly another great depression. When a business fails, you must look for the head of the organization to take responsibility. Not doubting that Mr. Wagoner is a very good person, however he has taken the backbone of the American economy into arrested development. Mr. Wagoner has been the CEO of GM since 2000; since then, stocks have plummeted from $60 to less than $2 in March of 2009, and General Motors has suffered more than $85 million in loses. While Toyota, Honda, and Ford worked on gas-electric hybrids, Mr. Wagoner focused on SUV’s. The Obama Administration made the choice to avoid a depression by bailing out General Motors; however it would have been irresponsible to leave it in the hands of the very same leadership that led it to the present.
Elizabeth was correct, socialism isn’t American and Americans would never allow it to be either. Stephen Hess, a presidential scholar at the Brookings Institution, said Obama's action lacked any historical parallel because the circumstances of the financial crisis were unique and he could succeed because he seemed to have a good "internal gyroscope" on reading the mood of the public. "So far people are with him," Hess said. "There will be a lot of people who say: At last somebody is doing something."
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Social Capitalism
Maintaining good blood circulation in your body is one of the central tenets of good health. Blood is the means by which nutrients and oxygen travel throughout the body. Proper blood circulation is imperative for our major organs to function correctly; as they carry out their roles of maintaining our health. If they don’t receive the proper amount of blood flow, they can become diseased; which not only threatens our health but our lives as well.
Just as good blood circulation is important to the body, wealth circulation is important to American communities. We are witnessing the results of poor wealth circulation in many cities around the country. If we travel this technologically advanced nation we would see blight in Detroit, gang violence in Los Angeles, and stagnation that many housing projects of other inner-cities across America cause. The high crime rates that permeate these areas as a result of “Reganomics” – Give large corporations and the extremely wealthy tax breaks and the money will trickle down to the have-nots.
We have an administration that ran on the platform of change. Well, I say lets tests the perimeters of change. If economists are suggesting we are in extreme times, let’s take extreme measures. Now, I’m sure that there are those who the minute they read wealth circulation, we ready to crucify me on the cross of socialism; by no means am I suggesting changing our economic system, just a little fine tuning.
It is every individual’s right to prosper, to conduct business under the banner of free enterprise, to own property, and to make as much money as they possibly can – but what about sharing. The very young man that is able to attend college because of the proper circulation of wealth could very well be the same young man that burglarizes your home because of the lack of it. As part of the second New Deal President Roosevelt instituted the Wealth Tax Act, which taxed the wealthy during the Great Depression. In 2009 it can be called the Social Responsibility Tax. It would only tax those who have excess wealth 2.5% at the end of each year. For someone who has $25,000 in excess wealth, that is only $625 to possibly help someone who really needs it.
That is what America should be all about, insuring that each man, woman, and child has the essentials to help them make sense out of life. The Social Responsibility Tax would insure that all Americans will have the opportunity to have food, clothing, shelter, health, and education. It’s not socialism; it’s just a new brand of capitalism. Let’s try it America.
Just as good blood circulation is important to the body, wealth circulation is important to American communities. We are witnessing the results of poor wealth circulation in many cities around the country. If we travel this technologically advanced nation we would see blight in Detroit, gang violence in Los Angeles, and stagnation that many housing projects of other inner-cities across America cause. The high crime rates that permeate these areas as a result of “Reganomics” – Give large corporations and the extremely wealthy tax breaks and the money will trickle down to the have-nots.
We have an administration that ran on the platform of change. Well, I say lets tests the perimeters of change. If economists are suggesting we are in extreme times, let’s take extreme measures. Now, I’m sure that there are those who the minute they read wealth circulation, we ready to crucify me on the cross of socialism; by no means am I suggesting changing our economic system, just a little fine tuning.
It is every individual’s right to prosper, to conduct business under the banner of free enterprise, to own property, and to make as much money as they possibly can – but what about sharing. The very young man that is able to attend college because of the proper circulation of wealth could very well be the same young man that burglarizes your home because of the lack of it. As part of the second New Deal President Roosevelt instituted the Wealth Tax Act, which taxed the wealthy during the Great Depression. In 2009 it can be called the Social Responsibility Tax. It would only tax those who have excess wealth 2.5% at the end of each year. For someone who has $25,000 in excess wealth, that is only $625 to possibly help someone who really needs it.
That is what America should be all about, insuring that each man, woman, and child has the essentials to help them make sense out of life. The Social Responsibility Tax would insure that all Americans will have the opportunity to have food, clothing, shelter, health, and education. It’s not socialism; it’s just a new brand of capitalism. Let’s try it America.
Friday, March 27, 2009
FDR Not Sucessful - Are You Serious?
It seems as if the Republican cry for bipartisanship during last years election carried as much weight as Chicken Little’s cry of “the sky is falling”. Since the President Obama’s inauguration Republicans have done whatever possible to make our new President’s job a difficult one. The GOP have now attempted to create a new history for America by saying President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal was unsuccessful, and President Obama’s New Deal II will follow suit.
Paul Siegel writes on WatchBlog.com, “Republicans say FDR’s New Deal did not work and Obama’s New Deal will not work either.” Some political pundits are comparing Obama to FDR because they are following a Republican president who left the country in economic turmoil; and both increased the size of government and government spending to pull the nation out of crisis.
Siegel points out that Republicans such as Newt Gingrich, Rudolph Giuliani, Mark Sanford, Jon Kyl, and Mike Pence are getting the idea that the original New Deal failed from a book by Amity Shlaes called The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression. As the title suggests, it is a rewrite of history. As Siegel points out, “It presents an extremely biased view.”
The American people must have thought the New Deal was successful; having elected President Roosevelt for four terms. The country prospered for almost 50 years until its opponents began to slowly dismantle many of the social programs that the New Deal established until many had disappeared by the Regan and Bush Sr. administrations.
The New Deal established temporary job relief to those who lost jobs, created the Social Security system and relief for dependent families, helped farmers, regulated industry, and reformed the banking system. Mr. Siegel mentions, “My family lived through the Great Depression in a dilapidated tenement house with no heat. We just barely had enough to eat. My father could not find work. We were wondering how we would get along. Then Roosevelt established the Public Works Administration (PWA) and my father got a job. It wasn't a wonderful job and he did not like it very much - he was part of an army shoveling snow. But it kept our family of 7 - 2 parents, 4 kids and a grandma - a step away from starvation……Don't tell me and the many other poor people who were helped by FDR's programs that FDR's stimulus program did not work.”
President Roosevelt’s New Deal not only changed the economy; it changed the direction and history of the United States. We can only pray that President Obama is as successful. Hopefully, 80 years from now historians will truly be able to compare Barack Obama to the great Franklin Roosevelt; by comparing how they repaired America.
Paul Siegel writes on WatchBlog.com, “Republicans say FDR’s New Deal did not work and Obama’s New Deal will not work either.” Some political pundits are comparing Obama to FDR because they are following a Republican president who left the country in economic turmoil; and both increased the size of government and government spending to pull the nation out of crisis.
Siegel points out that Republicans such as Newt Gingrich, Rudolph Giuliani, Mark Sanford, Jon Kyl, and Mike Pence are getting the idea that the original New Deal failed from a book by Amity Shlaes called The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression. As the title suggests, it is a rewrite of history. As Siegel points out, “It presents an extremely biased view.”
The American people must have thought the New Deal was successful; having elected President Roosevelt for four terms. The country prospered for almost 50 years until its opponents began to slowly dismantle many of the social programs that the New Deal established until many had disappeared by the Regan and Bush Sr. administrations.
The New Deal established temporary job relief to those who lost jobs, created the Social Security system and relief for dependent families, helped farmers, regulated industry, and reformed the banking system. Mr. Siegel mentions, “My family lived through the Great Depression in a dilapidated tenement house with no heat. We just barely had enough to eat. My father could not find work. We were wondering how we would get along. Then Roosevelt established the Public Works Administration (PWA) and my father got a job. It wasn't a wonderful job and he did not like it very much - he was part of an army shoveling snow. But it kept our family of 7 - 2 parents, 4 kids and a grandma - a step away from starvation……Don't tell me and the many other poor people who were helped by FDR's programs that FDR's stimulus program did not work.”
President Roosevelt’s New Deal not only changed the economy; it changed the direction and history of the United States. We can only pray that President Obama is as successful. Hopefully, 80 years from now historians will truly be able to compare Barack Obama to the great Franklin Roosevelt; by comparing how they repaired America.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
The Coming Civil War - Yeah Right!
I found “Fox News ‘war games’ the Coming Civil War” to be an attention-grabbing piece. The commentary was written by Glen Greenwald, a former constitutional law and civil rights attorney. Mr. Greenwald is also a best selling author having written, “How would a Patriot Act” a critique of the Bush administration's use of executive power, and "A Tragic Legacy" which examines the Bush legacy. His most recent book, "Great American Hypocrites", examines the manipulative electoral tactics used by the GOP and propagated by the establishment press.
Mr. Greenwald does an outstanding job of pointing out some of the hypocrisies of America’s “Grand Old Party” better know as the GOP. It is good reading for those with the ability to think rationally and objectionably about the current political climate. The outcry from the Republican Party is bipartisanship however their actions fall on their on deaf ears.
Greenwald points out that Presidents Clinton and Obama, as well as their administrations have faced onslaught rhetoric from conservatives who claim they intend to fight against liberals and leftist. When President Clinton became president large numbers of white middle-aged men felt they had to defend the country from the liberals and leftists. The ideal logy created the group “Angry White Male”, who took an anti-government stance. Anything stance our last Democrat president as taken; has been attacked by the conservative Republican platform. However, during the past Bush era, especially, the slightest mention of disagreement with the president and American policy would get you marked with the 21st century’s version of the Scarlett Letter – UN patriotic.
An attempt to illustrate the hypocrisy was used in comparing Clinton’s and Bush Jr.’s use of presidential powers. When Bush seized and used limitless and unchecked surveillance activities, detention powers with no insight, secret prisons, and increased federal spending the “Angry White Male” was quiet and no longer angry. Conversely, year’s earlier when former president Bill Clinton obtained warrants to eavesdrop on Americans – America’s liberties were being threatened. When Clinton would deploy U.S. soldiers around the globe – Republicans saw no benefit.
Now the conservative Republican view, in its zealousness, has done the reprehensible as well as irresponsible. Fox News did a show on the potential of a second “civil war” where the military would possibly side with the people and not listen to the government. Since the inauguration of President Obama, there seems to be an increase in anti-government and violent rhetoric from conservative Republicans. The rational and objectionable thinker must now distinguish between the GOP (Good Old Party) and the GOB (Good Old Boys) – or the 21st century segregationists.
Mr. Greenwald does an outstanding job of pointing out some of the hypocrisies of America’s “Grand Old Party” better know as the GOP. It is good reading for those with the ability to think rationally and objectionably about the current political climate. The outcry from the Republican Party is bipartisanship however their actions fall on their on deaf ears.
Greenwald points out that Presidents Clinton and Obama, as well as their administrations have faced onslaught rhetoric from conservatives who claim they intend to fight against liberals and leftist. When President Clinton became president large numbers of white middle-aged men felt they had to defend the country from the liberals and leftists. The ideal logy created the group “Angry White Male”, who took an anti-government stance. Anything stance our last Democrat president as taken; has been attacked by the conservative Republican platform. However, during the past Bush era, especially, the slightest mention of disagreement with the president and American policy would get you marked with the 21st century’s version of the Scarlett Letter – UN patriotic.
An attempt to illustrate the hypocrisy was used in comparing Clinton’s and Bush Jr.’s use of presidential powers. When Bush seized and used limitless and unchecked surveillance activities, detention powers with no insight, secret prisons, and increased federal spending the “Angry White Male” was quiet and no longer angry. Conversely, year’s earlier when former president Bill Clinton obtained warrants to eavesdrop on Americans – America’s liberties were being threatened. When Clinton would deploy U.S. soldiers around the globe – Republicans saw no benefit.
Now the conservative Republican view, in its zealousness, has done the reprehensible as well as irresponsible. Fox News did a show on the potential of a second “civil war” where the military would possibly side with the people and not listen to the government. Since the inauguration of President Obama, there seems to be an increase in anti-government and violent rhetoric from conservative Republicans. The rational and objectionable thinker must now distinguish between the GOP (Good Old Party) and the GOB (Good Old Boys) – or the 21st century segregationists.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Should Government Dictate Executive Pay?
Over the last two years the overall total compensation of the highest-paid executive increased 20.5 percent while revenues increased 2.8 percent. As of February 2008, the average top executive received overall total compensation of $18,813,697, according to the study. In comparison, the median pay for workers rose only 3.5 percent to $36,140 in 2007, from $34,892 the previous year, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Those are startling numbers when the state of the American economy is taken into consideration. Companies who receive bailout money are contemplating buying new company jets and going on company trips to Las Vegas. The same executives and board of directors who placed their companies in such dire economic unrest are being rewarded with bonuses, yet thousands of average Americans workers are loosing jobs and homes; and in some cases lives.
President Obama is suggesting putting a limit to how much companies receiving bailout money can pay their top executives. Under the current circumstances the American people would approve of such a decision; however it does go against the economic principles Americans hold dear.
In her commentary “Government shouldn't decide executive pay” Carly Fiorina chief executive of Carly Fiorina Enterprises and former chief executive of HP, introduces a number of solid suggestions on how the problem of executive pay can be fixed.
Should Government Dictate Executive Pay?
Those are startling numbers when the state of the American economy is taken into consideration. Companies who receive bailout money are contemplating buying new company jets and going on company trips to Las Vegas. The same executives and board of directors who placed their companies in such dire economic unrest are being rewarded with bonuses, yet thousands of average Americans workers are loosing jobs and homes; and in some cases lives.
President Obama is suggesting putting a limit to how much companies receiving bailout money can pay their top executives. Under the current circumstances the American people would approve of such a decision; however it does go against the economic principles Americans hold dear.
In her commentary “Government shouldn't decide executive pay” Carly Fiorina chief executive of Carly Fiorina Enterprises and former chief executive of HP, introduces a number of solid suggestions on how the problem of executive pay can be fixed.
Should Government Dictate Executive Pay?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)