Are Americans Being Played?

The economy is quite good, profits for big companies are up, stocks are around all time highs, big banks are running strong, and big government tax revenues are up. Should I say the economy is good for the big crowd, big business, big banks, big insurance, big energy, and big government. Yet growth is terrible, 1.2% (oh wait they changed how they calculate growth 1.7%), unemployment is still around 7.4% even with the nifty new way they count it. The U-6 is about double that. Working people are going backwards in income. Minority unemployment is absurd, but white poverty rates are rapidly heading to that of minorities–misery doesn’t enjoy company. Why are there two economies? One for them and one for us? Why is the American system being gamed by those who are able to have the best lobbyists that money can buy? The tax system, procurement policies, regulations, and even laws designed by the same group that benefits. Why is the silent majority the suffering majority? Maybe we need to think a little in terms of economic inclusion. Our economy should be open to all. Success or failure should be up to the market not gamed by your politics. Policy should be aimed at the general welfare more than special interests. I know it is not pc to even ask that especially as a Republican, but that has never stopped me before. Republicans used to be the party of free soil and free labor. The party of working man, farmer, minority, and the business man was the GOP. Thaddeus Stevens, speaker of the house was one of the singular formative figures in American history and probably the most important person that most of you don’t know. He gave us a legacy of an America that worked for Americans. That is why Republicans dominated politics with only two D’s to win Presidential elections from 1860 to 1928. I believe that the current chaos gives us an opportunity to do it again. First we have a problem. Today, we have two parties, one called bought and the other called paid for. When will we admit it to ourselves? The question is what do we do about it. I believe one of my good friends and editors here has come to the same conclusion. His solution is an honorable one, get a third party moving and shake up the system. If he can do it, GOD bless him. I looked at that avenue seriously in 1994 and concluded that the public is too apathetic and shall we say informationally challenged to make it work in the next 40 or 50 years. If Ross Perot couldn’t do it with all the publicity, excitement, and money he brought along with real issues, I don’t see it happening. Maybe I am not smart enough to figure that puzzle out. What I have figured out is that the existing parties are ripe for a citizen takeover. We do not need to reinvent the wheel, then the axle, then the wagon, then the engine, and finally the car. We don’t have time if we wanted to do so. In case you haven’t noticed, we are rapidly declining as a nation. China is rising. We need a 10 year plan not a 50 year one. We have an effective infrastructure that has been built over 150 years. Let’s use it. Interestingly enough, I see the people taking back their party in the GOP more rapidly than I had hoped, but with any revolution there is the danger of chaos without a vision and leadership. I see the people taking their seat at the table. Yet now that we are finally winning, I hear voices that say quit and start something new. I say forbid it Almighty GOD! What is wrong with conservatives? It seems when we lose we quit, but what really burns me up is that when we win we quit. Let’s get real. Don’t get your friends to run for office both public and party then abandon them when the work gets started. In the military, we never leave troops abandoned in the field to fend for themselves. We give them support. I beg you support our new leadership in Delaware and work to build a grassroots organization that will educate and support people who believe in liberty, justice, and a government that works for all. Stop being played by the system and learn to play the game or nothing will change except for more change in your wallet instead of bills.

21 thoughts on “Are Americans Being Played?”

  1. David
    It’s the ol three-card monte on the street corner. Obama is the dealer con-man and Americans are the marks. He’s already cleaned out all of our savings and now he’s after our pocket change.

  2. The political class of both parties are screwing all Americans for their own self-serving initiatives. The polarization in America between Left and Right has helped to foster this. Americans want to win and we blindly support those of the political class who pledge to carry our banner. Once in office they pay enough lip service to those ideals to stifle dissent and carry on their own agendas. DP’s heroes screw the Right, and DL’s heroes screw the Left and we all profusely thank them for the sex. It’s a pay to play economy and those anteing up are to the political elites are prospering. The political jingoists at DP and DL cheer on their respective demagogues as America burns.

  3. Ambupro

    I like your take on the current political situation in America but I believe that the two major parties are on the same agenda of screwing the American people, while spewing different and separate partisan rhetoric. I am of the belief that both major parties need to be challenged by a strong third party that will actually represent the people.
    You too are disgruntled with the current system but I’m not sure you have any solution, but are also spouting rhetoric. The good thing is: You are on the right track, so keep doing what you are doing.

  4. Ambupro, do you mean Delaware Right and DL? You seriously can’t have read this blog over the last 4 weeks and say “The political jingoists at DP and DL cheer on their respective demagogues as America burns.”

  5. David, I stand corrected to the extent that DP has become the voice of IPOD and those with a huge ax to grind to fell an insignificantly sized tree. There is no future for third parties. They can only win elections in extremely limited situations, or where a member of one of the two major parties takes advantage of them for their own self-gain. Democrats will never suffer. Their core constituents which are gays/feminists/unions/pro-choice/progressives/etc. are happy to have a seat at any table and will never leave. We have the Clintons thanks to a third party. Bill Clinton never carried 50% of the electorate in 92 or 96 and Hillary is riding those coattails. A third party in Delaware will assure a long Democrat reign. I do have a solution. A true GOP leader who can bring all of the diverse groups of Republicans together. There are more commonalities than differences. Lose the upstate/downstate labels. It’s time to stop the name calling and posturing. It doesn’t matter who can pee the furthest when you continue to lose elections.

  6. I agree, basically. I think we make the same point. It is time for a clarion call to join for the good of the whole of our state and nation and make the bickering that always will come, a side show not the main event.

  7. The economy is quite good…

    Especially if you’re a banker. Unfortunately, the labor participation rate (the percentage of Americans actually working) is a meager 63%, many of Omaba’s added jobs are low-paying or part-time, the savings rate is infinitesimal, more citizens are living paycheck-to-paycheck than ever before and they can’t print food stamps fast enough to keep-up with demand. Meanwhile, small business are hiring part-time workers, cutting hours and otherwise preparing for the burden of Omabacare to kick-in.

    Yes, the economy is ‘quite good.’

  8. Anbupro on August 3, 2013 at 10:54 said: “The political class of both parties are screwing all Americans for their own self-serving initiatives.”

    Yup.

    Anbupro on August 3, 2013 at 10:54 said: ” The polarization in America between Left and Right has helped to foster this.”

    Nope. The polarization is the solution, to the extent that it helps clearly identify what is really going on and who is doing what.

    Anbupro on August 3, 2013 at 10:54 said: “Once in office they pay enough lip service to those ideals to stifle dissent and carry on their own agendas.”

    Exactly. It’s called LYING, and that is a huge problem. Politicians who lie about who they are and what they stand for are the problem, the biggest problem.

    Anbupro on August 3, 2013 at 10:54 said: ” DP’s heroes screw the Right, and DL’s heroes screw the Left”

    You misunderstand. Conservatives don’t have heroes. We have PRINCIPLES. Conservatives support those who adhere to, model, champion, and fight for conservative principles. We support those champions only because and only to the extent that they are fighting for conservative principles.

    So when “DP’s heroes” screw anyone, they stop being DP’s heroes.

  9. “A true GOP leader who can bring all of the diverse groups of Republicans together.”

    I do not understand this often-heard wish. The reason Republicans can’t agree is that various conservative ideas have been put into practice in the past 30 years, and those whose ideas have not been put into practice feel as if they have gotten the short end of the stick. As a result the backers of various issues argue about whose turn it is to set the agenda. This is why pro-life bills have been passed in so many Republican-led states — they feel very strongly that it’s time to move past lip service.

    The cure for the squabbling is Republican control of the White House and Congress, although even when that happened under Bush the squabbling went on. With his deficit spending and immigration stance, many people were calling him a liberal by the end of his second term.

    Everyone wants another Reagan, but they forget that Reagan took office after a long dry spelll for Republicans, giving him a long honeymoon that everyone remembers fondly. If you go back and read the headlines today you’ll see that he took as much flak from his own party as any other president.

  10. I hope you realize, Mr. Moseley, that if you replaced “conservative principles” in your comment with “Marxist principles,” the statements would pass muster with any communist who ever lived.

    An ideologue is an ideologue, no matter what the ideology. No ideologue, nor any ideology, is to be trusted so completely that no alternatives are ever considered.

  11. Marxism is a collection of social and economic theories. It deals with the idea of value and the evolution of economic systems through time. As such, it predicts that certain political and economic changes should almost inevitably occur. It in itself is not really a political system.

    The socio-economic system that Marx predicted would arise after capitalism is called socialism. In each previous revolution an obstacle to the workers’ realizing the profits of their own labors was removed. The pronounced one remaining in capitalism is capital – the expensive tools needed to perform work efficiently. In a socialist system, instead of being privately owned, all the capital would be collectively owned by the workers or society at large. We already see manifestations of this in national disaster insurance, government police and fire services, and so on.

    Marx also thought that once a more advanced system manifested it would make all the older systems obsolete and tend to destroy them. There aren’t really too many authentic feudal or slave states any more, after all… where capitalism penetrates these older systems are washed away. So the few countries that tried to speed this evolution along, adopt a socialist system, and set the world on fire with an economic revolution were a bit upset when the revolution never really happened. At least not on such a short scale. The (at the time) new Soviet Union declared that they must have reached a heretofore unforeseen transitional state which they called communism.

    As an attempt to realize a kind of socialism, in communism the state takes charge of all resources, industry, and pretty much everything else in the name of the people. Because they were revolution-minded and didn’t really see their systems as inevitable, pretty much every communist system very quickly slid into fascism and tyranny with constant, violent, and secret actions against the very people they were supposedly serving. A Marxist would probably observe that the tendency of these communist states to falter and give in to more and more capitalist ways demonstrates more than anything else that they were not really the transition they claimed and perhaps originally tried to be.

  12. Rick
    Nearly all of the new jobs added to the American work-force are low paying part-time jobs that will not support a family. The figures are skewed by the Obama Administration for their purposes. A new two-class system is being created in America to promote an entitlement nanny system of government for control of the populace.
    Anybody that believes the garbage and statistics that are now being release without being challenged by the media is delusional.

  13. somebody
    Your comment is written like a paper written in a beginning level political science class at the U of D., where I took many political science classes. I found all of my poly sci professors to be very progressive liberal and very much leaning toward Marxism.
    Very good explanation and very well written!

  14. Everyone wants another Reagan, but they forget that Reagan took office after a long dry spelll for Republicans…

    One term is a ‘long dry spell?’

  15. Sorry, I should have said “for conservatives.” That said, most Republicans consider the Nixon presidency to have been a disaster for the party.

  16. Nixon wasn’t anything near the disaster Mr. Peanut was.

    Marx was a fool. Ensconced in the public library for most of his life, and dealing only with fellow disgruntled losers like Engels, he never really understood basic human nature, i.e., that at the end of the day people look out for their own best interests.

    We are hard-wired to do so.

  17. “at the end of the day people look out for their own best interests. We are hard-wired to do so.”

    If you were better educated, you’d realize that’s entirely wrong. We are a social species, like all our fellow apes, and actually evolved to co-operate with others of our species for our mutual benefit.

  18. If you were better educated….

    Who the hell are you to question my level of education?

    We are a social species, like all our fellow apes, and actually evolved to co-operate with others of our species….

    Spoken like a true theoretician. Now, get your head out of the sand, and face reality. Self-interest makes the world go around- unless you live in Cuba or North Korea, where it gets you killed.

    You’re the same kind of twit who harps about carbon emissions and drives a truck instead of a Prius.

  19. Nobody on August 4, 2013 at 23:07 said: “I hope you realize, Mr. Moseley, that if you replaced “conservative principles” in your comment with “Marxist principles,” the statements would pass muster with any communist who ever lived. ” An ideologue is an ideologue, no matter what the ideology.”

    No, that is very wrong, and is a very significant mistake (important to understand).

    Leftists are NOT simply people who hold to a different set of principles than conservatives.

    The more I interact with and deal with left-wingers, the more astonished I am that they DO NOT think remotely like conservatives. It is hard to come to this conclusion We do not naturally accept it. We resist it and assume that people think like we do. We naturally assume that other people are basically the same, but maybe you just like strawberry ice cream and I like mocha.

    Unfortunately, that is not how liberals think and look at the world.

    I said that conservatives value principles above heros.

    Liberals, including socialists are Marxists, do not have principles in the sense that conservatives do. They have a sense of belonging to the group. “This is what we are all doing” is the only guiding principle for liberals.

    So if a talking point is expressed by a liberal, immediately every other liberal is howling the same song at the moon in unison. Liberal political debate is simply a lot of parrots repeating what they hear from other liberals.

    Conservatives do not speak in unison because each conservative has his or her own individual opinion.

    Liberals repeatedly try to persuade or discourage conservatives by saying that some conservative leader said X or did Y.

    I don’t care. Couldn’t care less. Means absolutely nothing to me.

    If I know that A is right, I don’t care who says B.

    Liberals are utterly baffled, confused, and frustrated that their arguments fall flat. Why don’t conservatives fold when it is pointed out that some prominent conservative said B?

    Because we don’t care who says B, if we know that A is right.

  20. So conservatives decide what they believe by considering all the facts, reviewing all the alternatives, considering the logic, and weighing the choices, and deciding what is right.

    Liberals decide what is “right” by wetting their finger and putting it in the air and measuring which way the wind is blowing.

    Liberals want to be part of a group. They give up their individual opinion in order to fit in with the group.

    There is no “right” belief for a liberal.

    The only “right” position is to conform and fit in with the group.

    This is why liberals are offended and outraged when a conservative expresses an opinion that doesn’t fit in with the liberal-group position. That is HATE-FILLED RHETORIC when a conservative has his or her own opinion,.

    That’s because the conservative is rejecting the group as his or her dominant and most important source of authority.

    Conservatives are so bloody-minded independent that they have trouble cooperating and working together on a common goal.

    Nobody on August 4, 2013 at 23:07 said: “No ideologue, nor any ideology, is to be trusted so completely that no alternatives are ever considered.”

    This is a liberal fantasy: When a conservative concludes that the liberal is wrong, the liberal cannot handle this. This is unacceptable and incomprehensible to a liberal.

    There is no such thing for a liberal as being “wrong” and therefore a conservative who doesn’t conform has to be messed up.

    So liberals must conclude that the conservative doesn’t agree with the liberal because the conservative has failed to consider all the alternatives.

Comments are closed.