Our Democracy Is Pathetic!

[Guest]

Here we are, after at least a year of the 535 folks the country has elected to represent them, not being able to represent us at all. We have elected a group so fractionalized by far right and far left ideology that they are incapable of providing any form of governance. Our fiscal problems are critical, the financial track we're on is unsustainable. Everyone knows what needs to be done. Spending must be cut dramatically and revenues must be increased.

The Congress and the POTUS traded plans on what should be done several months ago and couldn't reach even a small agreement. The Congress voted to kick the can down the road and let a "super committee" come up with the plan. Now it appears that the super committee is so frozen in competing ideologies that they will fail to come up with any plan to address the fiscal crisis either.

Virtually all polls for months have shown that the country is disgusted with all of those who have been elected to govern them. In the background to what's happening in Congress are the early stages of a presidential election campaign. The sitting POTUS is viewed with record low levels of approval. He is ripe for replacement in the 2012 general election.

But the field of candidates sparring to compete with him is so pathetically unqualified and disorganized that it's possible that even an unpopular president may be re-elected. The Republican electorate is so ideologically split that it can't make up it's mind on which candidate is best to compete wirth the sitting POTUS. The "favorite" has changed so many times in recent months that it's embarrassing.

Who are those candidates? Several seem to be campaigning simply to sell their books. When faced with reasonable questions in a debate format, several were so woefully unprepared as to be embarrassing. Many have made little effort to construct a political organization that has a chance of winning local elections. What they're doing with the campaign funds they're raising is a good question that maybe someone should ask. They seem happy with the notoriety and the book sales that follow a series of TV debates. A couple seem well-qualified, but are being rejected by the GOP "base" and ultra-conservative pundits for narrow ideological reasons. Many are clearly unprepared and unqualified to be POTUS. Several better potential candidates have chosen not to enter the current political fray. It is a sad and frustrating vacuum of leadership.

And here we have a "political forum". To discuss what? To argue the merits of one side of the political spectrum or the other? Both appear to be badly faulted and irresponsible. Most of those elected will seek re-election. They must be pretty good jobs. Virtually none of them appear to have any interest in actually governing the country. The current state of our democracy is pathetic!

[Guest]

Here we are, after at least a year of the 535 folks the country has elected to represent them, not being able to represent us at all. We have elected a group so fractionalized by far right and far left ideology that they are incapable of providing any form of governance. Our fiscal problems are critical, the financial track we're on is unsustainable. Everyone knows what needs to be done. Spending must be cut dramatically and revenues must be increased.

The Congress and the POTUS traded plans on what should be done several months ago and couldn't reach even a small agreement. The Congress voted to kick the can down the road and let a "super committee" come up with the plan. Now it appears that the super committee is so frozen in competing ideologies that they will fail to come up with any plan to address the fiscal crisis either.

Virtually all polls for months have shown that the country is disgusted with all of those who have been elected to govern them. In the background to what's happening in Congress are the early stages of a presidential election campaign. The sitting POTUS is viewed with record low levels of approval. He is ripe for replacement in the 2012 general election.

But the field of candidates sparring to compete with him is so pathetically unqualified and disorganized that it's possible that even an unpopular president may be re-elected. The Republican electorate is so ideologically split that it can't make up it's mind on which candidate is best to compete wirth the sitting POTUS.

Who are those candidates? Several seem to be campaigning simply to sell their books. When faced with reasonable questions in a debate format, several were so woefully unprepared as to be embarrassing. Many have made little effort to construct a political organization that has a chance of winning local elections. What they're doing with the campaign funds they're raising is a good question that maybe someone should ask. They seem happy with the notoriety and the book sales that follow a series of TV debates. A couple seem well-qualified, but are being rejected by the GOP "base" for narrow ideological reasons. Many are clearly unprepared and unqualified to be POTUS. Several better potential candidates have chosen not to enter the current political fray. It is a sad and frustrating absence of leadership.

And here we have a "political forum". To discuss what? To argue the merits of one side of the political spectrum or the other? Both appear to be badly faulted and irresponsible. Most of those elected will seek re-election. They must be pretty good jobs. Virtually none of them appear to have any interest in actually governing the country. The current state of our democracy is pathetic!

I personally think your too harsh. These candidates have plans. What plans did your candidate have besides the slogan "Hope and Change"? Are you telling me that these able candidates are worse then that twerp you voted for in 2008? Please.

[Guest]

sadly, :agree:

[Guest]

If you cannot find one or two good candidates in the GOP group, you're buying into exactly what the leftist media and "debate" moderators want you to buy into: that they are either too far right and "lunatic fringe", or they're too much in the center.....which happens to be a key group of voters to attract (independents/moderates).

I think VK's comments above are frustration with the fact that his fervent desire to vote for Obama again contradicts his motto of "Never vote for an incumbent." Can't have both.

[Guest]

Let me make myself perfectly clear....again!

I voted for Barack Obama in 2008. At the time I thought he was the lesser of two evils. I thought...and I said here...that if he didn't perform to my hopes and expectations, I would not vote for him for a second term.

I won't vote for him for a second term. I fervently hope that one of the Republican candidates is able to separate themselves from the rest in the eyes of the majority of Republicans. I hope whomever emerges as the candidate that will oppose President Obama will demonstrate experience, competence and plans for the country that the majority of Americans can embrace. I think there are a couple that can do that.

But as far as what any of you might read into my posts, let me be clear. My choice is to vote for whomever opposes Barack Obama...or no one at all.

But I want to emphasize that the POTUS represents only one branch of our government. The United States Congress has a whole lot more to do with the governance of this country than the President. Combining all branches of our government I am still of the opinion that our democracy is pathetic!

[Guest]

Our democracy is pathetic?

Feel free to move to Cuba.

[Guest]

Our democracy is pathetic?

Feel free to move to Cuba.

coralway - do you think that there is anyone from the president through all of the congress is leading? i feel that everyone is abdicating their leadership to some sort of committee or a special interest group like the occupiers or tea partiers. we need someone to stand up for america and its people! and sooner rather than later! politicians are too busy campaigning for reelection instead of leading!

[Guest]

coralway - do you think that there is anyone from the president through all of the congress is leading? i feel that everyone is abdicating their leadership to some sort of committee or a special interest group like the occupiers or tea partiers. we need someone to stand up for america and its people! and sooner rather than later! politicians are too busy campaigning for reelection instead of leading!

:agree:

[Guest]

What I think is "pathetic" is how Congress and the President continue with their charade of pretending to care about and pretending to identify with "the little guy"...."The 99%".

With their (senate's) median net worth being 25 times that of the median American family, it is ALL nothing more than a GAME to them.

It's the hypocrisy that makes the whole thing look "pathetic" and USELESS.

"President Barack Obama's plan for a new minimum tax rate for people who earn more than $1 million a year will likely affect some of the people who will have a say on whether the rule becomes law.

Namely: Congress.

.......according to the Center's research, 244 current members of Congress were millionaires in 2009, the most recent year for which data is available. That figure includes 138 Republicans and 106 Democrats.

That lofty financial status is claimed by only about 1 percent of Americans.

The median American family had a net worth of $96,000 in 2009, according to the Federal Reserve Board.

Of course, not all millionaires make more than $1 million in income annually -- that's an even loftier financial status enjoyed by an even more elite slice of Americans.

No matter how you look at it, though, members of Congress as a whole are a wealthy bunch -- typically several times wealthier than most of their constituents.

The median net worth for a current member of the U.S. House of Representatives was $725,000 in 2009, according to the Center's research, and the media net worth of a U.S. Senator was $2.4 million."

Rank Name Party Min. Net Worth Average Net Worth Max. Net Worth
1 Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) R $156,050,022 $303,575,011 $451,100,000

2 Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) D $182,755,534 $238,812,296 $294,869,059

3 Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) D $65,692,210 $174,385,102 $283,077,995

4 Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) D $36,694,140 $160,909,068 $285,123,996

5 Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) D $89,358,027 $160,302,011 $231,245,995

6 Rep. Vernon Buchanan (R-Fla.) R -$69,434,661 $148,373,160 $366,180,982

7 Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) R $73,685,086 $137,611,043 $201,537,000

8 Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho) R $38,936,114 $109,034,052 $179,131,990

9 Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) D $61,446,018 $98,832,010 $136,218,002

10 Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) D $64,210,256 $94,870,116 $125,529,976

11 Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) D $46,055,250 $77,082,134 $108,109,018

12 Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) D $49,083,204 $76,886,611 $104,690,018

13 Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) D -$7,356,915 $58,436,537 $124,229,990

14 Rep. Gary Miller (R-Calif.) R $19,365,053 $51,833,526 $84,302,000

15 Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) R $9,778,047 $50,717,522 $91,656,998

16 Rep. Diane Lynn Black (R-Tenn.) R $14,673,049 $49,409,519 $84,145,990

17 Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.) R $19,898,179 $43,797,589 $67,697,000

18 Rep. Richard Berg (R-N.D.) R $19,347,579 $39,164,515 $58,981,451

19 Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) D $14,900,036 $39,012,518 $63,125,000

20 Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-Texas) R $13,303,385 $38,204,868 $63,106,351

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/09/congressional-millionaires-buffett-rule.html

[Guest]

Let me make myself perfectly clear....again!

I voted for Barack Obama in 2008. At the time I thought he was the lesser of two evils. I thought...and I said here...that if he didn't perform to my hopes and expectations, I would not vote for him for a second term.

I won't vote for him for a second term. I fervently hope that one of the Republican candidates is able to separate themselves from the rest in the eyes of the majority of Republicans. I hope whomever emerges as the candidate that will oppose President Obama will demonstrate experience, competence and plans for the country that the majority of Americans can embrace. I think there are a couple that can do that.

But as far as what any of you might read into my posts, let me be clear. My choice is to vote for whomever opposes Barack Obama...or no one at all.

But I want to emphasize that the POTUS represents only one branch of our government. The United States Congress has a whole lot more to do with the governance of this country than the President. Combining all branches of our government I am still of the opinion that our democracy is pathetic!

I do NOT believe our democracy is pathetic.

I DO think we, the voters, have allowed ourselves to become very lazy and if anyone is pathetic it is US, the voting public.

We, as a nation, have become lazy and entitled and OUR LEADERS ARE A REFLECTION OF US !!!!

I think, while this did not begin in 2008, this last election reflected some sort of crescendo where we elected the worst possible person to be president at this time. He didn't begin this, but he is what he is, and we all SHOULD HAVE KNOWN it and exercised our brains and our voting power, but we sat idly by and allowed it to happen.

VK, I understand your frustration..and share it but the answer is in the voters hands.....and I am just as negative on this as you. I see nobody now being able to vote beyond their party allegiance or some strict idealogy that does not recognize any compromise or "common good".

We have become lazy...we would rather call those who do not feel the same way a name rather than debate the issue intelligently...we would rather speak than listen and maybe learn. We have all heard this before, but we now are an electorate who votes NOT for country good but personal good.

The democracy is fine...it is just not used for good of country any longer,

Much is captured by your "never vote for an incumbent" cry, as voters will march to the polls and cast a vote for the name recognition. Voters today consider posting on a forum like this to be "discussing"...not much "discussion" on this forum at all. Come November, blacks will vote as they ALWAYS do...union members as they ALWAYS do....business owners as they ALWAYS do,,because it is easy to do.

I recall pre internet, pre cable tv, when we listened to the news and read the newspapers, and while their was a share of spin included it was at a minimum...in this information age, it seems to me that we were more INFORMED in those days and certainly we cared more about this country.

Sorry for the babbling...it has been awhile for me on here to babble away.....this thread struck a nerve with me.

WE GET THE LEADERS WE DESERVE AND THEY ARE A REFLECTION OF OURSELVES

[Guest]

I personally think your too harsh. These candidates have plans. What plans did your candidate have besides the slogan "Hope and Change"? Are you telling me that these able candidates are worse then that twerp you voted for in 2008? Please.

LOL Laughing too hard to even write at the moment.....

[Guest]

I personally think your too harsh. These candidates have plans. What plans did your candidate have besides the slogan "Hope and Change"? Are you telling me that these able candidates are worse then that twerp you voted for in 2008? Please.

Check Politifact - you'll see they've kept a report card (not terribly flattering) on Obama's promises. It was more than a slogan. The more you ignore that it wasn't just "Hope and Change", the more it looks like simple name-calling.

They actually have something called the "Obamameter" tracking over 500 campaign promises. At the moment, it's 157 Kept, 49 Compromise, 53 Broken, 67 Stalled, 180 In The Works and 2 Not Yet Rated.

[Guest]

That's a chunk of change out there under the control of our "leaders". I would love to see the math on this equation-Take each of our elected officials in DC that worked to hard to "provide" us with the wonderful "healthcare" plan. Give them each the "freedom" to donate 10% of their personal net worth to the national debt. What would be the total amount taken in and how would that effect our debt?
Sweeten the deal? Give those in DC who "really care" about the American people, freedom to donate ANY amount...You know who politicians these are because they TELL us how all the time that everything they do is to HELP the American people, right? :oops:

[Guest]

Check Politifact - you'll see they've kept a report card (not terribly flattering) on Obama's promises. It was more than a slogan. The more you ignore that it wasn't just "Hope and Change", the more it looks like simple name-calling.

They actually have something called the "Obamameter" tracking over 500 campaign promises. At the moment, it's 157 Kept, 49 Compromise, 53 Broken, 67 Stalled, 180 In The Works and 2 Not Yet Rated.

157 kept+49 compromise+53 broken + 67 stalled + 180 in the works +2 not rated=608 total promises made
157 kept/608 made=25.8% kept? or 73.9% not kept yet?
Wow that is great for 3 years work...almost 75% of the time alloted to keep those promises. I believe that this kind of productivity would get the average person fired.

[Guest]

Our democracy is pathetic?

Feel free to move to Cuba.

For starters we are not a DEMOCRACY. The United States is a Representatiave Republic. Big difference. Get the facts straight before calling the United States something that it is not.

Now lets start a discussion from this point on.

[Guest]

LOL Laughing too hard to even write at the moment.....
Gee, that's too bad. : )

[Guest]

31% promises kept!!!!!
That is the reason I am totally and completely against Obama and the current congress.
By any measure they have earned a failing grade.

In ANY corporation in America/the world none of them would have made it to 6 months.

So do the right thing and get them out of office in 2012 or sooner if at all possible (no violence intended for those with a distorted magnifying glass on what did he say??).

btk

[Guest]

31% promises kept!!!!!
That is the reason I am totally and completely against Obama and the current congress.
By any measure they have earned a failing grade.

In ANY corporation in America/the world none of them would have made it to 6 months.

So do the right thing and get them out of office in 2012 or sooner if at all possible (no violence intended for those with a distorted magnifying glass on what did he say??).

btk

:thumbup: Good one. LOL Could I use that sometime? "distorted magnifying glass" LOL

[Guest]

For starters we are not a DEMOCRACY. The United States is a Representatiave Republic. Big difference. Get the facts straight before calling the United States something that it is not.

Now lets start a discussion from this point on.You are correct, The USA is a representative republic.

I suppose over time, we have begun to refer to ourselves and to our form of government as a "democracy", as meaning a type of government featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically. But as you point out, calling our government a democracy is incorrect.

What's interesting is to try to understand the differences between a democracy and a representative republic. After you tweaked me on the use of the word, I did a little research.

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: rule by omnipotent majority. In a Democracy, individuals or any group of individuals composing the minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of the majority. It is a case of majority-over-man. The majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government.

Thomas Jefferson opposed the weaknesses of the democratic style of government established by our Constitution, when in 1782 he wrote, "...An elective despotism was not the government we fought for . . ." He also denounced the despotic concentration of power in the legislature, under the Constitution.

Jefferson wrote, "All the powers of government, legislative, executive, judiciary, result from the legislative body. Concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, as opposed to by a single one. A collection of despots would surely be as oppressive as one."

The framers of our Constitution were aware of the weaknesses of democracy. The Framing Convention’s records prove that by decrying the "excesses of democracy". The Framers, by their recognition of the "excesses of democracy," were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring a Republic as the proper form of government for the United States. They went on the write, "The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread, and will be for long years. That of the (President) will come it’s turn, but it will be at a remote period."

They went on to observe that, "There can be no legal system which protects the individual or the minority against unlimited tyranny by the majority.

So, the framers chose a "republic" as the form of government for their new country. The purpose of a Republic is to control the majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect the individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of the minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general.

The framers then argued and eventually wrote and agreed to The Constitution. This system of Constitution-making, for the purpose of establishing constitutionally limited government, is designed to put into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence: that the people form their governments and grant to them only "just powers," limited powers, in order primarily to secure and keep secure their God-given, unalienable rights. This form of representative republic is designed, above all else, to preclude the existence of any governmental power capable of being misused so as to violate the individual’s rights--to endanger the people’s liberties.

So where are we today? Is the system that the framers put in place working?

I'll direct you to the Twelve Basic American Principles written and used by the framers in creating the Constitution. Here they are...

http://lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/index.html


I know this is a lengthy response, Figmo. But I wopuld ask that those who have chosen to read this far take the time to again re-visit these fundamental principles. After reading them, ask yourself whether our elected representatives are following those principles going on 300 years later. I have concluded that they are not. And for that reason, I'll assert that our (government) is pathetic!

[Guest]

Do you really believe this country hasn't been down this road many times before. The great thing about America is we will never surrender and we will always come back bigger and better. So I am ignoring the naysayers here and focusing on the coming elections and policies being introduced and will voice my opinion and eentually my vote.

[Guest]

You are correct, The USA is a representative republic.

I suppose over time, we have begun to refer to ourselves and to our form of government as a "democracy", as meaning a type of government featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically. But as you point out, calling our government a democracy is incorrect.

What's interesting is to try to understand the differences between a democracy and a representative republic. After you tweaked me on the use of the word, I did a little research.

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: rule by omnipotent majority. In a Democracy, individuals or any group of individuals composing the minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of the majority. It is a case of majority-over-man. The majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government.

Thomas Jefferson opposed the weaknesses of the democratic style of government established by our Constitution, when in 1782 he wrote, "...An elective despotism was not the government we fought for . . ." He also denounced the despotic concentration of power in the legislature, under the Constitution.

Jefferson wrote, "All the powers of government, legislative, executive, judiciary, result from the legislative body. Concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, as opposed to by a single one. A collection of despots would surely be as oppressive as one."

The framers of our Constitution were aware of the weaknesses of democracy. The Framing Convention’s records prove that by decrying the "excesses of democracy". The Framers, by their recognition of the "excesses of democracy," were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring a Republic as the proper form of government for the United States. They went on the write, "The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread, and will be for long years. That of the (President) will come it’s turn, but it will be at a remote period."

They went on to observe that, "There can be no legal system which protects the individual or the minority against unlimited tyranny by the majority.

So, the framers chose a "republic" as the form of government for their new country. The purpose of a Republic is to control the majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect the individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of the minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general.

The framers then argued and eventually wrote and agreed to The Constitution. This system of Constitution-making, for the purpose of establishing constitutionally limited government, is designed to put into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence: that the people form their governments and grant to them only "just powers," limited powers, in order primarily to secure and keep secure their God-given, unalienable rights. This form of representative republic is designed, above all else, to preclude the existence of any governmental power capable of being misused so as to violate the individual’s rights--to endanger the people’s liberties.

So where are we today? Is the system that the framers put in place working?

I'll direct you to the Twelve Basic American Principles written and used by the framers in creating the Constitution. Here they are...

http://lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/index.html


I know this is a lengthy response, Figmo. But I wopuld ask that those who have chosen to read this far take the time to again re-visit these fundamental principles. After reading them, ask yourself whether our elected representatives are following those principles going on 300 years later. I have concluded that they are not. And for that reason, I'll assert that our (government) is pathetic!

Feel free to read this defination https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45044&highlight=democracy+representative then continue with this discussion. Get educated as to what WE ARE SUPPOSE to be not what our elected criminals tell us that we are. No we are not following what the founding fathers had in mind. We have been lazy and unmindful of those that we have entrusted to do what is right for the country. I hope that we are not to late to save this great nation without blood shed. Maybe our elected officials will wake up and do the right thing and get us back on track once again.

[Guest]

Well said, Rubicon.

[Guest]

Do you really believe this country hasn't been down this road many times before. The great thing about America is we will never surrender and we will always come back bigger and better. So I am ignoring the naysayers here and focusing on the coming elections and policies being introduced and will voice my opinion and eentually my vote.

Very good, but let's just hope that we are not to late. Looks like the Great Give Away State of California is hitting the end of the barrowing line in two weeks according the the Daily Sun. Will the FED bail them out again and again and Oh, Well, with California getting ready to go under what do you think that will do to the rest of the country. I will venture to say, nothing really good.

I think someone once said it does not matter who votes, what matters is who counts the votes. Will we have an honest election? Lets hope so.

[Guest]

Feel free to read this defination https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45044&highlight=democracy+representative then continue with this discussion. Get educated as to what WE ARE SUPPOSE to be not what our elected criminals tell us that we are. No we are not following what the founding fathers had in mind. We have been lazy and unmindful of those that we have entrusted to do what is right for the country. I hope that we are not to late to save this great nation without blood shed. Maybe our elected officials will wake up and do the right thing and get us back on track once again.Figmo, I trust you are addressing this comment to the forum readership in general, because you and I seem to be in agreement on the effectiveness of our elected representatives to actually govern. Our representative republic--you were correct in noting the difference between a "democracy" and what the framers actually had in mind when drafting the Constitution and creating the Congress--seems to have deteriorated into a mob of elected "representatives" so split ideologically and controlled by their political parties and money from special interests that they are incapable of governing at all. One thing that they are absolutely not, and that is "representative".

Like I said in the title of this thread, corrected a bit....our (government) is pathetic!

[Guest]

Again, as I said yesterday....

WE GET THE LEADERS WE DESERVE AND THEY ARE A REFLECTION OF OURSELVES

The below is a sampling from todays news of the audience that these men and women we have elected are playing to....

"“No more talking. They’ve got guns, we’ve got bottles. They’ve got bricks, we’ve got rocks…in a few days you’re going to see what a Molotov cocktail can do to Macy’s.”

"The loss of their camp at Zuccotti Park doesn’t seem to be slowing down the Occupy Wall Street movement as protesters are calling for “a national day of direct action” on Thursday."

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/11/16/ows-protesters-calling-for-day-of-action-following-loss-of-camp-in-zuccotti-park/

"White Americans give Obama a thumbs down by a 61%-36% margin, with non-white Americans give the president a thumbs up by a more than 2-1 margin."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/15/cnn-poll-obama-ranks-low-among-recent-incumbents/

"Authorities are investigating two bullets that hit the White House, one of them apparently cracking a window on the residential level where President Barack Obama and his family live."

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=109&sid=2635318

We and it is WE are all against something and very seldom play the I AM , FOR card.

No doubt these elected officials are doing a bad job but we allow it and if you follow what is happening, we are getting what we deserve and it IS a reflection of US

[Guest]

VK, sorry for the misunderstanding, yes, I was addressing that comment to the general readership of this thread. Seems that our elected officials have use the word Democracy so much that most think that is the form of government that we have. They need to know and understand the difference between a Representative Republic and a Democracy.

Hopefullly with this upcoming election we can move back to the form of government that our Constitution was written for. That states will start taking back their rights and that the Federal Government will be scaled way back and perform the functions that it is granted by the Constitution. Do I think this will happen. Not unless we get the general public educated and headed in the right direction.

It is going to be an interesting election year. One that will determine whether this country survives or is added to the heap of failed countries and governments.

[Guest]

Bucco you are right but it is all the more reason why cooler heads prevail. "The people" need to focus and to express their concerns and make reasonable demands of their representative. OWS antics only create chaos.
Well thought out suggestions emailed to representative are productive. Conversely telling a representative that they are jerks is not.

Also we should not be sidetracked by gossip that is of little consequences to the issues at hand. We are all human beings after all and all of us are fallible
so let's not allow political PR spin to unfairly charge otherwise good people.

My generation was taught to think through issues before deciding subsequent generation were taught to feel (emote) and hence we have too many whiners and naysayers.

I believe in American and in the American people because they have always been willing to fight for their freedoms.

[Guest]

To begin with, most of our elected republicans, both state and federal, have signed Grover's blood oath to not raise taxes, ever. So, there is NO hope of compromise in Congress. It's not going to happen. Democrats are willing to cut entitlements but will not do it unless there are offsetting revenues and an increase in the top marginal rates. We therefore are ungovernable when it comes to spending and taxing.

The only way out of this is a constitutional amendment to change the way we elect our government. We need to do it through public financing and eliminate special interest and corporate spending. You can vote every incumbent out of office and the new people elected will be corrupted before the next election cycle.

So, if you think the fact that the richest 400 people in America control more wealth than the bottom 150 million is OK. Fine. I don't.