This years elections is truly a battle. I don't think two candidates could be so different. I've been a republican all my life, but if I'm honest with myself, I can see a greater line being drawn between the middle and upper class.
As a republican, I'm all for less goverment, responsible spending and of course less taxes. I do believe though that we need to take care of the elderly, the working poor, and give the hard working middle class a boost.
My aunt was a lobbyist during the Carter years and she told me that when she arrived in Washington, she was a republican. She left as a democrat.
It's not so much that Obama scares me, but the fact that we will likely have a democratic congress as well. The pork barreling that they push through is atrocious. I would really love to see what McCain could do as far as reform but I don't think his goal is to take care of the middle and lower classes. I like some of Obama's ideas, but it's the unknown ideas/values that scare me.
I'm pretty mixed right now and have no clue as to what/who I'm going to vote for. Any ideas???
Thanks for reading
1 comment:
I think you are seeing this correctly...Either way we lose. The presidency anymore is a slight of hand to draw attention from what is really going on. It is akin to a magic show where the magician is doing something with one hand while the trick is really taking place in the other.
Congressional lobbyists control how our tax dollars are spent. You would be sickened by the amount of money that is changing hands on “the hill”. Not only do Political Action Committees provided a ridiculous amount of campaign contributions to congressional representatives in return for special tax treatment/favors/spending, they also provide 7 figure jobs to ex-congressional seat holders so they can in turn lobby their ex-colleagues. It isn’t about what is best for the people…it is about what is best for themselves. Case in point a snippet of an article from Gregg Easterbook:
“Why does Congress tolerate the swindle aspect of Fannie and Freddie? For the standard reason: Congress is on the take. Lisa Lerer of Politico reports that in the past decade, Fannie and Freddie spent almost $200 million on campaign donations to Congress and on lobbying members of Congress, some of the lobbying money going to former members. This year, for instance, Fannie gave the legal max of $10,000 to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and to Republican House Whip Roy Blunt, neither of whom face meaningful re-election challenge. As for costly lobbying, the implied deal is: Don't rock the boat while in office and someday you too will be a former member getting easy money to lobby former colleagues. During Senate debate on the Mae-Mac bailout, Majority Leader Harry Reid refused to permit a vote on an amendment that would have barred Fannie and Freddie from giving money to members of Congress. Reid did not merely oppose the measure, he refused to allow the Senate to vote on it -- so that members of Congress could remain on the take, without having to go on record about the matter.”
Democrats can point fingers all they want at Bush, but the fact of the matter is Bush didn’t write the laws and Democrats have already been in control of congress. I think they were smart though in letting the economy get to this point on purpose and then redirecting attention towards Bush so they could get a democratic president.
Personally, I don't know which way to vote - but I am sad to say that either way I don't think it will make a difference one way or the other. The real issue is our "law making" body. Politicians complain that the middle class is shrinking, but it is their own doing – money is taken from the middle class and diverted to the rich in the form of government contracts (not via tax breaks as they would have you believe) and to the poor in the form of welfare. Democracy as our fore-fathers envisioned is dead, it is only an allusion to keep the masses believing they are living in a democratic society.
-Peace
Post a Comment