Obama's slow motion coup continues

[rbwhatever1]

Good article TAM. The bus is indeed heading off the cliff and nothing can stop it. Most Americans are living in a state of oblivion. They're not in denial to be shaken awake with an epiphany. These people are oblivious to what's happening and don't have a clue where we are headed. We the people have only two options. We can force our States to jump off the bus or we can sit back and continue watching the plunge in complete amazement on a daily basis until the "tilt" light comes on.

Most humans live day to day and don't even have the foresight to plan for a weather event until its upon them. They all rush out, empty the stores in a few hours and when the event passes it's business as usual. I have no faith in humans to fix anything before the storm. After it passes is a different story. Those Americans who survive the next storm will not easily be led down the same path but its very unfortunate they couldn't read history and avoid it.

[The Annoyed Man]

I finished reading the book in less than an hour, it's pretty short. It is also surprisingly non-partisan. The author never once says that one party is better than the other, nor does he identify his own party affiliation. In fact, during the Q&A at the end of the book, he steadfastly refuses to endorse one party over the other. He calls for a return of the days when neighbors used to be able to discuss politics on the front porch - and disagree without hatred of one another - a day when politicians could solve problems together without holding the nation hostage to a particular ideology, and with at least a token regard for the constitutionality of what they did.

What he DOES talk a lot about is voter responsibility to:

1. Elect people of good character, who DO what they SAY THEY ARE GOING TO DO. Demand truthfulness and honesty and integrity from your elected representative.
2. Throw the bum out of office and elect someone else if the person they elect DIDN'T DO WHAT THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO DO, no matter the excuses they offered for why they didn't.
   
   My comments: You wouldn't accept excuses from your employees. These people are your employees. You don't work for them; they work for you. They don't work for "the United States", they work for your district. They are not there to "send a message", they are there to legislate. They are not there to "be in solidarity with" anyone else, they are there to be in solidarity with you. They are YOUR voice, not their own. THAT is what "serve", which is the performance of "'service", by a "servant", means. They are NOT your conscience.....that belongs to you alone.....they are elected to take orders from your conscience, not their own. If they find conflict between your conscience and their own, they they have an obligation to return to their district for "town hall" type meetings to explain the conflict to their electorate and either convince you, or arrive at some kind of consensus before acting on that issue any further. If they cannot represent you in good conscience, then they need to either resign so that A) they can keep their conscience intact, and B) you can elect someone who will represent your conscience, or they need to swallow their own conscience and be faithful to what you sent them to do. (On the other hand, a person who isn't true to their own conscience is a person of low character, so......)
3. Accept that demanding fiscal rectitude from your elected representative out of one side of your mouth, and then praising him/her out of the other side of your mouth when that representative brings the bacon home to your district is the rankest kind of hypocrisy. Don't be a hypocrite. Why? Because hypocrites elect hypocrites. Demanding integrity and accountability from your representative requires the same kind of integrity and accountability from you.
   
   My Comments: This is a harder sell for republicans/conservatives than it is for democrats/liberals. The reason is at the core of the party platforms. Democrats are very open about liking and wanting big government, and thinking that government is the answer to all of their problems.......and this is reflected in their party platforms. The reason that democrats—both individually and at the party level—tolerate the repeated election of felonious representatives is that those representatives go to the capital to do exactly what they say they are going to do. Their felonious behavior is part and parcel of bringing home the bacon to their districts. Spending other people's money is easy as pie, and it comes naturally to people with felonious hearts; and if repeating that behavior both enriches themselves AND satisfies their constituents, then they will continue it until they are caught in an offense SO egregious that the Justice Dept has to do something about it. WHY is it that a big-government justice department would have to do something about it? It is because even someone like Obama understands that if egregious enough offenses go unpunished, people will lose faith in their big government and begin to doubt the need for its existence, and with that, the hold that big government politicians have over their electorate will begin to fade. My biggest fear is that, if enough of these people are in power for long enough, they will eventually act to suspend the Constitution and abolish elections.
   
   Republicans/conservatives, on the other hand, tend to elect people who talk about small government, because that is what republicans/conservatives think they want. Even some libertarian voters are guilty of this. Ron Paul made a great show out of voting against "big-spending", but he was very good at bringing home pork for his district. Until voters are willing to go without cash from the federal cow, they will not be more conscientious about their voting choices. Being a true conservative or libertarian demands it. "That money is our taxes, and everybody else is doing it, so we might as well get our share before the others spend it all" is NOT an excuse. That merely perpetuates the problem. Somebody has to be the grown up and step up to the plate by being willing to pass up the temptation to spend OTM.......even if it costs their district something.
   
   If nobody steps up, then the "coup" succeeds, and nobody has anybody to blame but themselves.
   
   DEMAND accountability. ACT if you don't get it.

[cb1000rider]

The problem starts with us. None of us want an honest politician that looks at the fiscal picture and says, "Yep, taxes are going up, services are going down, and it's going to be that way for a while..."

Know how many votes that person gets? Zero. It's a non-starter.

We continue to elect the person that promises the improbable:
* Lower Taxes
* Decreased Government waste
* Deficits that will be made up by economic stimulation and free economy
* Smaller government
* And usually throwing a bone to the particular slant of the constituents

Unless we drop defense spending, decrease medicaid/medicare, and steal (more) from social security, taxes are really the only option. I'm not arguing economic policy and I concede that there is an aspect of economic stimulation and government revenue. Rather, I'm arguing basic math.

I assume that being a politician is a way of life and probably a good career choice if you're good at it... But yea, the problems really start with our inability to address fiscal reality and containing to believe (somewhat blindly) the same old song and dance.

And then there are the special interests. Obama is a lot of things, but I don't think he's as deeply steered under the covers by money as most of those in congress are.

The money will run out... That is, the worldwide view of our ability to pay back debt will eventually be doubted. Then the changes will happen. I feel bad for that generation.

[MechAg94]

The problem starts with us. None of us want an honest politician that looks at the fiscal picture and says, "Yep, taxes are going up, services are going down, and it's going to be that way for a while..."

If I could assume the govt was only getting and spending the money it needed for basic functions, then yeah, that is a valid statement. But I already know that isn't true so if any politician says that, I already know they are lying to me. You might find some state or local govt where that might be the case, but not the Feds.

Also on honesty, if you talk to the average voter, real honesty is the last thing on their mind. It surprises me how many people listen to a political speech and can't parse out what is rhetoric and what was actually said (if anything).

[VMI77]

The problem starts with us. None of us want an honest politician that looks at the fiscal picture and says, "Yep, taxes are going up, services are going down, and it's going to be that way for a while..."

Know how many votes that person gets? Zero. It's a non-starter.

We continue to elect the person that promises the improbable:
* Lower Taxes
* Decreased Government waste
* Deficits that will be made up by economic stimulation and free economy
* Smaller government
* And usually throwing a bone to the particular slant of the constituents

Unless we drop defense spending, decrease medicaid/medicare, and steal (more) from social security, taxes are really the only option. I'm not arguing economic policy and I concede that there is an aspect of economic stimulation and government revenue. Rather, I'm arguing basic math.

I assume that being a politician is a way of life and probably a good career choice if you're good at it... But yea, the problems really start with our inability to address fiscal reality and containing to believe (somewhat blindly) the same old song and dance.

And then there are the special interests. Obama is a lot of things, but I don't think he's as deeply steered under the covers by money as most of those in congress are.

The money will run out... That is, the worldwide view of our ability to pay back debt will eventually be doubted. Then the changes will happen. I feel bad for that generation.

Every argument that starts with voters are the problem ignores the root cause of the problem: too many voters are unqualified to vote and too many voters who should not have a vote at all. One man one vote is a prescription for mob rule and eventual tyranny. It doesn't work. Any system that allows people to vote benefits to themselves at the expense of others is ultimately doomed to failure.

Even without the current imbalance between the productive and non-productive classes, at least half of the population is too stupid (not uneducated, but lack the necessary intelligence) to understand what they are voting for or against, much less the consequences of their vote. The Founders didn't base The Republic on universal suffrage. At this point, a good portion of the population presumably intelligent enough to vote are not too ignorant to vote, which theoretically could be remedied, but too "miseducated" or indoctrinated to cast an intelligent vote. I'm not referring to legitimate disagreement. You can't disagree about what actions should be taken in light of the facts when you have no idea what the facts actually are.

I'm not proposing a remedy because their is no remedy except the natural self-correcting mechanism of reality. What is now going on won't continue to go on because reality makes it unsustainable. Collapse and catastrophe in one form or another are coming and the only real questions is when and how bad. Neither can be answered before the fact.

[cb1000rider]

to the average voter, real honesty is the last thing on their mind. It surprises me how many people listen to a political speech and can't parse out what is rhetoric and what was actually said (if anything).

Honestly, with the way things spread via communication these days, I can't parse out what is political rhetoric and what is complete fiction. The most effective message seems to be something inflammatory, based on a true premise and then throw in some outright lie to support the position and "inflame" people to action. Perhaps that's just the nature of how you spur the cattle to action... I'm not sure.

Just to parse it out, per candidate, it takes a good deal of research.

And I'm with VM (above) - I think the founding fathers had it right. Democracy won't work. The population is too easily influenced, incapable of actual critical thinking, and many are incapable of having civil debate on any issue that they feel strongly about... It's only recently that I've come to that conclusion.

I'm also frustrated with the level of "unproductive" population. I simply know of too many "disabled" people that are quite capable of contributing to the economy in one way or another. Maybe they can't run 80lbs of concrete up stairs, but to have them on total disability is a sham... Yet we'll focus on "securing our borders" and whatever other shiny object they choose to awe the public with.