Obama lied about health care to get elected

[someguy]

<object width="320" height="265"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/v/ceOG90OCCRw&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/ceOG90OCCRw&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="320" height="265"></embed></object>

Fast forward to 50 second and you'll see how Senator Obama opposed Hillary's health care proposal, which is essentially what Obama just signed into law. So watch him debate against his own bill. Its pretty entertaining.

[LenInSebastopol]

My goodness!
A politician lying?
How in the world could THIS happen?
What IS this world coming to?

[someguy]

My goodness!
A politician lying?
How in the world could THIS happen?
What IS this world coming to?

It is a sad day to know that many of us expect our politicians to lie. What is this world coming to?

[LenInSebastopol]

It is a sad day to know that many of us expect our politicians to lie. What is this world coming to?

Maybe they don't lie? Maybe they prevaricate.
Once read a book for a class called The Republic, by some old dead Greek, and he convinced me that the best way to run even the best state as a leader is to sometimes lie when in position of power. Some other old dead Italian guy about a thousand years later, The Prince, kicked that thought up a notch. Kind of like that movie where Colonel Jack Nicholson yells, "The truth?, the truth? You can't handle the truth".
We need to get around to finding folks WITH PRINCIPLES and CHARACTER to match and not just mouths to say words we wish to hear, and then make them SERVE in office, rather than the megalomaniacs and sociopaths that we currently have who only desire power. Then after they get the power, vote them out because, like some old dead Brit once wrote, power corrupts, absolutely!

[elienos]

I thought congress wrote the bill and that it isn't what Obama had hoped for? I guess I lost interest to long ago...

But you know, the presidnt doesn't have as much power as you seem to think. I do think that he wasn't happy with the bill he got but didn't want to fail cause the republicans are simply democrat obstructionists who want him to fail. It's called politics. It's all power games.


<object height="265" width="320">


<embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/ceOG90OCCRw&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="265" width="320"></object>

Fast forward to 50 second and you'll see how Senator Obama opposed Hillary's health care proposal, which is essentially what Obama just signed into law. So watch him debate against his own bill. Its pretty entertaining.

[someguy]

Maybe they don't lie? Maybe they prevaricate.
Once read a book for a class called The Republic, by some old dead Greek, and he convinced me that the best way to run even the best state as a leader is to sometimes lie when in position of power. Some other old dead Italian guy about a thousand years later, The Prince, kicked that thought up a notch. Kind of like that movie where Colonel Jack Nicholson yells, "The truth?, the truth? You can't handle the truth".
We need to get around to finding folks WITH PRINCIPLES and CHARACTER to match and not just mouths to say words we wish to hear, and then make them SERVE in office, rather than the megalomaniacs and sociopaths that we currently have who only desire power. Then after they get the power, vote them out because, like some old dead Brit once wrote, power corrupts, absolutely!

I would agree with you that most of our politicians probably do think that we can;t handle the truth and that concealing the truth will make things run more smoothly. I also agree that we have megalomaniacs and sociopaths running our country. Too bad these psychopathic character traits run deep within our society in general. I just recently had a spat with someone who was claiming narcissism to be a healthy psychological state! When all these psychological perversions become mainstream, its no wonder that our politicians are sociopaths, etc... The best we can do is call them on it, when it should be obvious to everyone.

[Barry]

My take on this is that he really tried, perhaps too hard, to cooperate with the Republicans and congress in general. Given that what you want and what congress will approve are often vastly different things, he did pretty good!

And there's a difference between lying and ending up with a different result, given that many other people interests and power are involved.

And, as he said, 95% of their plans were the same.

I forget what he said recently about not broadcasting the hearing and no backroom deals. I think he apologized. I think the debate on health care bill, while not perfect, was more public and transparent than such processes in the past.

[someguy]

My take on this is that he really tried, perhaps too hard, to cooperate with the Republicans and congress in general. Given that what you want and what congress will approve are often vastly different things, he did pretty good!

And there's a difference between lying and ending of with a different result, given that many other people interests and power are involved.

And, as he said, 95% of their plans were the same.

I forget what he said recently about not broadcasting the hearing and no backroom deals. I think he apologized. I think the debate on health care bill, while not perfect, was more public and transparent than such processes in the past.


All of the republicans were staunchly opposed to this mandate idea and the public option from the start. So Obama didn;t need to compromise with them.

Who did Obama have to compromise with? The vast majority of his base that elected him and the democratic side of the congress mostly wanted a public option. If his base plus the democratic congressmen/women mostly wanted a public option, and Obama himself ran on that principal, who did he compromise with? Again, definitely not republicans.

It seems like he got all the pro-public option democrats to compromise their principals (for example Dennis Kucinich) to vote for a mandate. I never saw any attempt from Obama to persuade anyone to vote for a public option, only to vote for a mandate.

Who were all these democrats who refused to vote for a public option? I certainly can't think of a single one. Certainly nobody can say that a majority of democrats would have rather passed this mandate in favor of a public option. So I'd really like to know who Obama compromised with and why would he go back on his campaign platform.

To me, I think the public option road would have been a much easier road to travel for Obama given the massive amounts of extra persuading he had to do with pro-public option democrats to get them on board in the final few weeks of the debate.

[theindependenteye]

>>> ...no backroom deals.

Just a thought, since it's my day off and I'm farting around doing not much, on the concept of the Backroom Deal.

Republicans, as I remember it, didn't object to Cheney refusing to disclose whom he met with in crafting the Bush energy policy. That was "executive privilege." Whereas any private meetings on health care qualify as vile "backroom deals."

The backroom deal was what wrote the US Constitution. It's how legislative democracy works. If you don't have it, you have absolute partisan deadlock and eventually machine guns. You sit down, you do your horse trading, you scratch each others' backs, and eventually you come up with something that gets the necessary votes. That's how we got every piece of legislation, glorious or vile, in the history of the United States of fucking America.

And, certainly, some are criminal, some are legal but vile, some water down the purity, but this is real life. You negotiate in the back room. Did anyone actually expect that *negotiation* would happen at the health care dialogue Obama put together with the Republicans? Of course not. It was theatre for both sides. International treaties don't get hammered out on the floor of the UN General Assembly: the rhetoric happens there. You get a few people together in the back room or the kitchen or the men's room, and you work it out, bit by bit. Then you sell it to the people in the outer circle. Then you take it public. Even the Son of God knew that's the way it had to work.

I have sympathy with all but the most savage politicians. "Campaign lies!" Of course we all disapprove. But can any candidate come out and say, "This is what I think I want to happen, without knowing all the facts, without a year's CIA briefings or CBO analysis, without analyzing what can actually pass Congress, without getting readings from the vast array of groups and industries affected by every decision, without any second thoughts, I'll try my hardest to get something sort of resembling this to happen." That would be closer to the Truth.

Absurd. "He's a wimp, he's a wuss, he's a waffler, he's not the strong Daddy I need." He'd get about 6 votes across the USA. We hate being lied to, but we absolutely demand the lies.

Peace and, nevertheless, joy--
Conrad

[someguy]

I have sympathy with all but the most savage politicians. "Campaign lies!" Of course we all disapprove. But can any candidate come out and say, "This is what I think I want to happen, without knowing all the facts, without a year's CIA briefings or CBO analysis, without analyzing what can actually pass Congress, without getting readings from the vast array of groups and industries affected by every decision, without any second thoughts, I'll try my hardest to get something sort of resembling this to happen." That would be closer to the Truth.


The hard part about getting this legislation passed and getting all the democrats on board was the lack of a public option. It had relatively nothing to do with the CBO or the republicans. If the democrats were going to resort to reconciliation anyways why didnt they pass through the public option? Then Obama wouldn;t have had to struggle with dem's such as Dennis Kucinich and all the other progressive's that demanded a public option. (In fact, there were like 50+ progressives in the house that signed a pact not to vote for any health care bill unless it contained at least a public option, but they lied too.)

Surely Obama had to have a pretty darn good idea of what the congress was willing to pass, since he was a part of the congress for a good while before the election. Maybe not. But it sure seems like the democrats in congress were more than willing to pass a public option. Ultimately Obama wants this bill to morph our health care system into a public option or even single payer, or so he claims. He had his chance in my book. Nothing could have stood in his way.

[Barry]

...Surely Obama had to have a pretty darn good idea of what the congress was willing to pass, since he was a part of the congress for a good while before the election. Maybe not. But it sure seems like the democrats in congress were more than willing to pass a public option. ...
I'm pretty sure there are not 50 democratic senators at this point who would support a public option, most unfortunately.

[someguy]

I'm pretty sure there are not 50 democratic senators at this point who would support a public option, most unfortunately.

You may be right. From my intelligence gathering Ive come to the conclusion that at some point the senate had 51 yea votes lined up, but a few had backed out for some reason. Thing is, I just don't see why Obama couldn't have fought the battle against the two or three senators he needed to pass a public option like he promised. Instead he decided to battle the many 50+ representatives who were for the public option.

Democratic Opponents Of Public Option Called Out In Ad (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/24/democratic-opponents-of-p_n_219919.html)

List of 51 Senate Democrats Who Support a Public Option: What’s Stopping Them Now? | FDL Action (https://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/01/29/list-of-51-senate-democrats-who-support-a-public-option-whats-stopping-them-now/)

https://www.slideshare.net/DocJess/progressive-caucus-letter-public-option

But at the end of the day, the health insurance companies love this bill. Their stocks keep climbing as they anticipate 30 million new customers. And you gotta wonder why Obama would keep insisting that the insurance companies were "fighting this bill tooth and nail "? I certainly wouldn;t fight a bill tooth and nail that handed me 30 million more customers on a platter. Would you Barry? Is there anyone here that would fight like hell against such guaranteed profit? It's just another lie that Obama told us. It really sucks.

I posted another video about how Obama said that when he got elected, the first thing he'd do is get us out of Iraq. He said, "you can take that to the bank." And its as if it never happened. We need to hold him accountable, at his request mind you.

"My goodness!
A politician lying?
How in the world could THIS happen?
What IS this world coming to?"

This is what happens when we continually allow our government to lie to us, we become like Argentines. They are apathetic about the constant corruption in the government, and they simply accept it as the way things are. Its an inside joke for sure. But sad none the less.

[Barry]

You may be right. From my intelligence gathering Ive come to the conclusion that at some point the senate had 51 yea votes lined up, but a few had backed out for some reason. Thing is, I just don't see why Obama couldn't have fought the battle against the two or three senators he needed to pass a public option like he promised. Instead he decided to battle the many 50+ representatives who were for the public option.

Democratic Opponents Of Public Option Called Out In Ad (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/24/democratic-opponents-of-p_n_219919.html)

List of 51 Senate Democrats Who Support a Public Option: What’s Stopping Them Now? | FDL Action (https://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/01/29/list-of-51-senate-democrats-who-support-a-public-option-whats-stopping-them-now/)

Progressive Caucus Letter Public Option (https://www.slideshare.net/DocJess/progressive-caucus-letter-public-option)
Thanks for pointing this out. I didn't realize this was the case.



I posted another video about how Obama said that when he got elected, the first thing he'd do is get us out of Iraq. He said, "you can take that to the bank." And its as if it never happened. We need to hold him accountable, at his request mind you.
I think it would irresponsible if we just picked up our marbles and went home from Iraq. I think it is a few months longer than promised in the campaign. Quite understandable in my opinion. We created the mess of there and now its our responsibility to help them avoid a civil war. Another gift from "W". There is a clear timetable for leaving (at least for "combat forces", which is another problem).

[Sciguy]

When encountering a serious, systemic problem, why do so many people search for a band aid, or sometimes a technofix. such as fixing the carbon dioxide excess by dumping iron into the sea or finding a cache of mythical creatures called honest politicians. They exist - Dennis Kucinich and Lynn Woolsey are proof - but they are too rare and most Americans don't trust them. Most want their "experienced" incumbents with the spice of corruption.

So what is a better idea? How about changing the whole system of representation? After two hundred years of trial, we now know that it's a failure. Let's go back to what the Founding Fathers sort of had in mind when the country was small and everyone could communicate with everyone else. The Internet gives us the ability to vote for ourselves on the important issues of the time. We don't need representatives voting their cynical "consciences" (a euphemism for selling their vote to the highest bidding lobbyist). Let's get passwords and universal Internet access and the whole country could have voted on single payer. What's wrong with that? Obviously there is no free economic market in vote selling, that's why they won't talk about it. We could do it on a limited basis - one city, county or state for a demonstration. Isn't this a bit more important than Safeway copying someone's driving license? Yet that gets hundreds of comments and the last time I posted this idea, not one person responded. Are our priorities screwed up or what?

We need a spirited discussion in HOW to get this done. I suspect any bold idea succumbs to the self censorship of assuming that any systemic changes are beyond our reach. That's why the extremists on the right get so much press. The Teabaggers are so over the top that they don't even care who hears them. And they will swing the whole public debate as a result. I think that making use of the Internet for non-representational voting is important. It might not result in the kind of vote that I want but at least it would represent the whole public so who can ask for more?

Sciguy


Maybe they don't lie? Maybe they prevaricate.
Once read a book for a class called The Republic, by some old dead Greek, and he convinced me that the best way to run even the best state as a leader is to sometimes lie when in position of power. Some other old dead Italian guy about a thousand years later, The Prince, kicked that thought up a notch. Kind of like that movie where Colonel Jack Nicholson yells, "The truth?, the truth? You can't handle the truth".
We need to get around to finding folks WITH PRINCIPLES and CHARACTER to match and not just mouths to say words we wish to hear, and then make them SERVE in office, rather than the megalomaniacs and sociopaths that we currently have who only desire power. Then after they get the power, vote them out because, like some old dead Brit once wrote, power corrupts, absolutely!

[LenInSebastopol]

Yes. Congress writes ALL bills, the president: none.
According to the Constitution. The president's "guys" may write stuff but only Congress may introduce. And then only the HOUSE can do so, and the Senate may do so with another type of the same bill stuff in it. Or jointly. Point being THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES has all the power of bills.
Your notion of "repubs" want this and stop that, and "dems" want all the other stuff is what is called COMPROMISE, otherwise it is called DICTATORSHIP and then it's, "Annie get your gun" time as none will stand for that. As for losing interest, yeah, the fol de rol (formally known as BS) will wear us down so try and look over it towards the big picture. And you are right, it's all a power game, so vote the suckers out 'cause power doesn't belong to them.


I thought congress wrote the bill and that it isn't what Obama had hoped for? I guess I lost interest to long ago...
But you know, the presidnt doesn't have as much power as you seem to think. I do think that he wasn't happy with the bill he got but didn't want to fail cause the republicans are simply democrat obstructionists who want him to fail. It's called politics. It's all power games.

[LenInSebastopol]

I would agree with you that most of our politicians probably do think that we can;t handle the truth and that concealing the truth will make things run more smoothly.

Most of us can't handle the truth, possibly all of us viz a viz the whole truth, maybe? Besides, we don't such issues in the Constitution, but we do need to be informed somewhat and then vote for folks that have integrity, so lies the double rub.


I also agree that we have megalomaniacs and sociopaths running our country. Too bad these psychopathic character traits run deep within our society in general. I just recently had a spat with someone who was claiming narcissism to be a healthy psychological state! When all these psychological perversions become mainstream, its no wonder that our politicians are sociopaths, etc...

Traits of successfully CEOs and politicians are shared with socio-patho types, oddly enough. I guess seeing and treating folks as objects "helps" as a start at least. But ya got to wonder about their wives and kids and stuff.
Yeah, narcissism as a predominant characteristic is a strong trait in our new world order . That is a real zeitgeist of this modern age IMO


The best we can do is call them on it, when it should be obvious to everyone.

We should vote them out and shout out every time they are caught being less of a person and behaving as such. It's not really what they say, 'cause they talk SO pretty, it's what they do and how they vote. In the end it takes a bit of work on our part!@

[LenInSebastopol]

It wouldn't be "representation" if I understand you. It would be as close to "pure democracy" as we may get.
It would be suicide and I ain't going for that either. It may be called propaganda, but I truly believe the guys that started this experiment wanted to guard against such. They even wanted only those with a self-interest to have the ability to vote, i.e. property. And that was because they correctly conjectured that if everyone could vote then we would get bread and circuses, as they too knew historical events.
Even if we could vote on ALL matters, and it probably could be done as you stated using tech, the pendulum would swing to the lowest point prior to dead still in to short a time. And we would be exhausted having to study all the material we all so love to pass!
No, sorry, I get off the boat here. But keep thinking!



So what is a better idea? How about changing the whole system of representation? After two hundred years of trial, we now know that it's a failure. Let's go back to what the Founding Fathers sort of had in mind when the country was small and everyone could communicate with everyone else. The Internet gives us the ability to vote for ourselves on the important issues of the time. We don't need representatives voting their cynical "consciences" (a euphemism for selling their vote to the highest bidding lobbyist). Let's get passwords and universal Internet access and the whole country could have voted on single payer. What's wrong with that? Obviously there is no free economic market in vote selling, that's why they won't talk about it. We could do it on a limited basis - one city, county or state for a demonstration. Isn't this a bit more important than Safeway copying someone's driving license? Yet that gets hundreds of comments and the last time I posted this idea, not one person responded. Are our priorities screwed up or what?

We need a spirited discussion in HOW to get this done. I suspect any bold idea succumbs to the self censorship of assuming that any systemic changes are beyond our reach. That's why the extremists on the right get so much press. The Teabaggers are so over the top that they don't even care who hears them. And they will swing the whole public debate as a result. I think that making use of the Internet for non-representational voting is important. It might not result in the kind of vote that I want but at least it would represent the whole public so who can ask for more?

Sciguy

[Sciguy]

LeninSebastopol:
Thanks for putting in your two cents.

Yes, I thought that I was clear. Representation is a failure. We have the tools to replace it. Why are we unwilling to see how pure democracy would work?

Your bald, unsupported and contradictory statement: "it would be suicide" mystifies me. Suicide? To have people vote on their own laws and issues? To make it far more difficult for corporations to buy votes? To largely eliminate corrupt politicians (the representatives but not the executive or its agencies). You see this as suicide and yet you think it is so self-evident that you don't even feel it necessary to explain that claim?

I'm not sure how you are using the term bread and circuses but don't you know that that is a cynical invocation of kings and representatives pulling the wool over the eyes of the population? Give them bread and circuses and all they will think about is eating and entertainment and they will leave us alone to spend their money on our friends and families. Cheap fast food and television. Sounds to me like we are already getting bread and circuses. That's the whole point of my suggestion. I don't want to be fed bread and circuses. I would like to have power over my own life.

I have long wondered about the choice of the Founding Fathers to restrict voting to property owners. When I watch the chaos around know-nothing Sarah Palin or the Teabaggers, I have to wonder if the Fathers had a great idea. But you can't think that way, as though you belong to some elite that can make rules for everyone else. Palin and Teabaggers are actually strongly minority positions, who get their power through the magic of anti-democratic representation. The polls consistently report intelligent and thoughtful mainstreams (for single payer or public option for example) that are thwarted by the corruption of the representational system. If we had direct democracy do you think that hedge fund managers would be able to take $120 billion of taxpayer money for bonuses? Do you think that the entire output of the nation would be used to prop up banks with virtually nothing left over for workers or home owners? I can't imagine that happening without the easy corruption that the representational system brings.

We are witnessing one of the most corrupt periods in national government, a great propaganda campaign that buys up all the media and sends our kids to bomb innocent people in foreign countries and you are worried because ordinary people might not vote in the elitist way that you prefer? (whatever that might be - you don't indicate).

Shame on you! I think I can vote as intelligently as you can.

Our representatives just gave us 2000 pages that virtually no representative read, while they bent over and pulled down their pants for the insurance industry. But Alan Grayson had a 132 page simple bill (wow, we call that simple today) just extending Medicare to everyone. I think if a 132 page document were on the internet to be voted on, I could extract the meaning of it in about an hour, maybe two, and would like to debate it with bloggers and wacco'ers. Would that not be worth my time, to set the parameters of health care for the next century or so?

Internet neutrality anyone? Corporate personhood revisited? Things the so-called representatives refuse to even mention.

Sciguy


It wouldn't be "representation" if I understand you. It would be as close to "pure democracy" as we may get.
It would be suicide and I ain't going for that either. It may be called propaganda, but I truly believe the guys that started this experiment wanted to guard against such. They even wanted only those with a self-interest to have the ability to vote, i.e. property. And that was because they correctly conjectured that if everyone could vote then we would get bread and circuses, as they too knew historical events.
Even if we could vote on ALL matters, and it probably could be done as you stated using tech, the pendulum would swing to the lowest point prior to dead still in to short a time. And we would be exhausted having to study all the material we all so love to pass!
No, sorry, I get off the boat here. But keep thinking!

[LenInSebastopol]

LeninSebastopol:
Representation is a failure. We have the tools to replace it. Why are we unwilling to see how pure democracy would work?

We have more choices now than any peoples on earth at any time. True? And yet check the stats on American Idol or any TV program, or food, or the money spent on what is real and what is "entertainment". What is real is planet wide bad water, disease from same, malnourishment to follow, and it goes depressingly on and on, and yet where do we find our 'gods'? In stuff and nonsense, not what is real. Look to see what we do with our time, money and energy when we do have choices! And that is what most folks go for, not for the stuff we know to be hurting.
Democracy IS mob desire and what the mob desires can be seen by what the mob goes for: pleasure, avoidance of pain, a FEELING to be loved, a FEELING to be feared and power, so the heard mentality will go for games on the internet, movies, porn, beer, drugs, etc.


Your bald, unsupported and contradictory statement: "it would be suicide" mystifies me. Suicide? To have people vote on their own laws and issues? To make it far more difficult for corporations to buy votes? To largely eliminate corrupt politicians (the representatives but not the executive or its agencies). You see this as suicide and yet you think it is so self-evident that you don't even feel it necessary to explain that claim?

Ya know, you're a guy I could love, but you are dead wrong. Corporations currently and successfully sell us stuff we don't need, so what makes you think they won't influence us in an election? You should be 30 years younger than you are as to be so naive to think that we will get 'informed' sans influence of Madison Avenue. My apologies for using Godwin's Law, but the Germans were the most sophisticated, well read and educated peoples and they voted for some short, mustached fellow who wrote a book about what and how he was going to do what he did, and then lead them to national suicide.


I'm not sure how you are using the term bread and circuses but don't you know that that is a cynical invocation of kings and representatives pulling the wool over the eyes of the population? Give them bread and circuses and all they will think about is eating and entertainment and they will leave us alone to spend their money on our friends and families. Cheap fast food and television. Sounds to me like we are already getting bread and circuses. That's the whole point of my suggestion. I don't want to be fed bread and circuses. I would like to have power over my own life.

Bread & circuses comes from some old dead Italian guy, Cicero, who noted that Rome was failing to be 'Rome-of-the-Good-Old-Days' whose gods were literally (translated) names of "Thrift", "Sobriety", "Virtue" "Hard Work" "Chastity", "Prudence", and other such modes. Cicero begrimed his modern Rome claiming that since all the populace could vote all they wanted were "bread & circuses". The result was that Rome would have to conquer more lands to get more taxes to support what the folks wanted in Rome, and it was a never ending cycle! Bread & circuses "ruined" Rome as that is what the mob voted to get. The "founding fathers" of this country read and knew that so shunned direct democracy.


I have long wondered about the choice of the Founding Fathers to restrict voting to property owners. When I watch the chaos around know-nothing Sarah Palin or the Teabaggers, I have to wonder if the Fathers had a great idea. But you can't think that way, as though you belong to some elite that can make rules for everyone else. Palin and Teabaggers are actually strongly minority positions, who get their power through the magic of anti-democratic representation. The polls consistently report intelligent and thoughtful mainstreams (for single payer or public option for example) that are thwarted by the corruption of the representational system. If we had direct democracy do you think that hedge fund managers would be able to take $120 billion of taxpayer money for bonuses? Do you think that the entire output of the nation would be used to prop up banks with virtually nothing left over for workers or home owners? I can't imagine that happening without the easy corruption that the representational system brings.

The FF had a great idea when they started this. We misplaced it but it is STILL a great way to go; best around really.
Consider at that time all power came from 'some elite' group, Lords, Earls, Kings, etc. so that notion was not all that strange at that time. Some of those guys could see into the future and knew that it could spread "downward" towards "the people" and EVEN to slaves! But the idea was not for a long time, until everyone was synched to the same grove, musically speaking. President Jackson jumped the gun.
It's a matter of economics, or so the FF may have thought. If you have property in the game (fearing those that had no worries) then taxation would be of greater interest. No? And if you owned a business your interests in the local activities was greater than say, a hippie passing through town, so attention was given by those with interests at such gatherings. Not real complicated.
As for those bank guys and their bunch o' money: I would be in the mob getting rope stretched and ready; skip the tar and feathers, as that would be for some 27th vice president in charge of paper clips.



We are witnessing one of the most corrupt periods in national government, a great propaganda campaign that buys up all the media and sends our kids to bomb innocent people in foreign countries and you are worried because ordinary people might not vote in the elitist way that you prefer? (whatever that might be - you don't indicate).

I have fear and faith that it only appears to be as bad as all that. I have confidence that we will weather this storm as well. We are not so tender anymore, but the do have a bigger mouth and can cry out more. But it gets lost in the cacophony as well. And all that bluster may be for the good as we get more folks involved. I pray civil and common courtesy are the main thrusts and not stupidity and violence. Speaking of which, it is not above ANY side to besmirch the other side by such tactics. I can as easily believe that true believers of the Democratic Party can smash their own offices and thrust the blame elsewhere as well as having right-wing fanatics doing similar and like tactics and having it go towards their opposition. Anything to raise the level of stupidity so the people will cry "peace, peace at any price".


Shame on you! I think I can vote as intelligently as you can.

Let's say that you are wrong and you can vote MORE intelligently than me. Our votes count equally.
Using a bell curve, let's say your vote is highly intelligent and is on the top 25% of the curve, top 10% of intelligent voters, then you will have to suffer what the dumbies voted for and if they vote for more self interests, like fill-in-the-blank, then everyone will have to pay for such.


Our representatives just gave us 2000 pages that virtually no representative read, while they bent over and pulled down their pants for the insurance industry. But Alan Grayson had a 132 page simple bill (wow, we call that simple today) just extending Medicare to everyone. I think if a 132 page document were on the internet to be voted on, I could extract the meaning of it in about an hour, maybe two, and would like to debate it with bloggers and wacco'ers. Would that not be worth my time, to set the parameters of health care for the next century or so? Internet neutrality anyone? Corporate personhood revisited? Things the so-called representatives refuse to even mention. Sciguy

We have determined that you are the more intelligent voter, and you have passion and care materially, but Madison Ave gets to us dummies with their influences and we vote your clear thinking out. You sure you want democracy? I know I could not live with it. You are made of stronger stuff.

[Valley Oak]

Paul, I agree with the spirit of what you are saying. You touch upon several excellent points. I won't waste our time nitpicking here and there with my opinions but I will address what to me is the most important point that you have made in your last two posts. That is, the fundamental problem that we, as the American people, are suffering from is systemic. Did I interpret that correctly? Because it really resonates with me.

In my opinion, the solution to the systemic flaws is to introduce proportional representation and a multi-party system (Proportional representation - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation)). And in areas where we have single member districts, we should should implement Instant Runoff Voting, like they have now in San Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland, Davis, and other jurisdictions in California and elsewhere in the US. First-past-the-post (Plurality voting system - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_past_the_post)) must be eliminated because that is what creates the two-party system we are suffering from. FPTP keeps power in the hands of a few and makes change extremely difficult; the healthcare ordeal we just witnessed is a prime example of that.


LeninSebastopol:
Thanks for putting in your two cents.

Yes, I thought that I was clear. Representation is a failure. We have the tools to replace it. Why are we unwilling to see how pure democracy would work?

Your bald, unsupported and contradictory statement: "it would be suicide" mystifies me. Suicide? To have people vote on their own laws and issues? To make it far more difficult for corporations to buy votes? To largely eliminate corrupt politicians (the representatives but not the executive or its agencies). You see this as suicide and yet you think it is so self-evident that you don't even feel it necessary to explain that claim?

I'm not sure how you are using the term bread and circuses but don't you know that that is a cynical invocation of kings and representatives pulling the wool over the eyes of the population? Give them bread and circuses and all they will think about is eating and entertainment and they will leave us alone to spend their money on our friends and families. Cheap fast food and television. Sounds to me like we are already getting bread and circuses. That's the whole point of my suggestion. I don't want to be fed bread and circuses. I would like to have power over my own life.

I have long wondered about the choice of the Founding Fathers to restrict voting to property owners. When I watch the chaos around know-nothing Sarah Palin or the Teabaggers, I have to wonder if the Fathers had a great idea. But you can't think that way, as though you belong to some elite that can make rules for everyone else. Palin and Teabaggers are actually strongly minority positions, who get their power through the magic of anti-democratic representation. The polls consistently report intelligent and thoughtful mainstreams (for single payer or public option for example) that are thwarted by the corruption of the representational system. If we had direct democracy do you think that hedge fund managers would be able to take $120 billion of taxpayer money for bonuses? Do you think that the entire output of the nation would be used to prop up banks with virtually nothing left over for workers or home owners? I can't imagine that happening without the easy corruption that the representational system brings.

We are witnessing one of the most corrupt periods in national government, a great propaganda campaign that buys up all the media and sends our kids to bomb innocent people in foreign countries and you are worried because ordinary people might not vote in the elitist way that you prefer? (whatever that might be - you don't indicate).

Shame on you! I think I can vote as intelligently as you can.

Our representatives just gave us 2000 pages that virtually no representative read, while they bent over and pulled down their pants for the insurance industry. But Alan Grayson had a 132 page simple bill (wow, we call that simple today) just extending Medicare to everyone. I think if a 132 page document were on the internet to be voted on, I could extract the meaning of it in about an hour, maybe two, and would like to debate it with bloggers and wacco'ers. Would that not be worth my time, to set the parameters of health care for the next century or so?

Internet neutrality anyone? Corporate personhood revisited? Things the so-called representatives refuse to even mention.

Sciguy

["Mad" Miles]

Aahh, there's the rub. Re: Proportional Representation and Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) vs. the one party masquerading as two system in place. How would we get the people, and "parties", in power to give up the very system that insures they stay in power?

This conundrum has been mentioned here on waccobb many times. So far I've not seen anyone propose a plan that has the remotest viability.

As for constitutional amendment, given the level of hysteria (Yes, I know it's a sexist word), demagoguery and shear hatred for others in the land, I am very leery of what might come out of it. And again, why would those in a position to make it happen, allow it, given that it might, even likely would, undermine their lock on "legitimate" power?

The problems are systemic. That's why chipping away at the margins; impeachment over policy disagreements, Tea Party babel, abolishing the Federal Reserve Bank, just to name a very few in a myriad of options, are inadequate solutions. And that assumes they're doable, which given the array of entrenched interests, they're not.

This is much larger question. And an old one. How do we fundamentally change our society in order to enhance our values? The old leftist debate about reform vs. revolution was all about that.

I advocate a mass movement of non-violent direct action affinity groups, and by mass I think it's going to take hundreds of thousands, if not millions, who engage in more than symbolic protest, but actually put their/our bodies on the gears of the machine. That's a potential form of popular and direct democracy that I have, and could again, put my time, efforts and money behind.

"Some people say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one..."

Of course, getting that many people to agree on our goals...have you ever herded cats? I have tried, had brief moments of success, and failed, so far...We're going to need a LOT of tuna!!!!

[Valley Oak]

Thanks again, Miles, for another outstanding post. I'll respond as best as I can with little time.

The observation you made that most stands out for me is the fundamental question of "How???" Not an easy question to answer. After all, if it was so clear then we would be well on our way to this fundamental, watershed systemic change if not there already.

I am a member of Californians for Electoral Reform (Californians for Electoral Reform (https://www.cfer.org)) and we have played a role in legislating IRV in the cities I mentioned earlier. The strategy is slow and I would say that, from an historical perspective, you and I would probably have to work our entire lives for the cause knowing that we will not see the fruit of our labor. This is what happened to Susan B. Anthony regarding her lifelong fight to win women's constitutional right to vote or even more recently, Ted Kennedy's dream of seeing health care for all Americans. Kennedy missed seeing it become a reality by only a few months.

The strategy being implemented by CfER and the Center for Voting and Democracy (FairVote.org | Home (https://www.fairvote.org)) is to achieve legislation locally (cities, towns, and counties) as a first step. And to use IRV for single member districts and proportional representation for multi-member jurisdictions (although there don't seem to be any multi-member districts today). After gaining a firm foothold in the electoral system throughout California by having, let's say, 50 or so jurisdictions with IRV, then the next stage of reform would be directed towards the State of California. This could take place through a ballot initiative, which would probably fail, or through legislative action in Sacramento, which would have much more likelihood of succeeding.

Constitutional reform at the federal level is decades if not a century away or more. An essential part of the idea is to get the idea to spread by getting more and more local jurisdictions to use IRV (and PR, if possible) and in that way gradually introducing reform, which is a more sound approach than lunging right away at a ballot initiative over something that most people won't understand and will instinctively reject.

Yes, you are right, the Democrats and the Republicans are loathe to change the system that benefits them the most, but the Republicans are far more resistant to this kind of fundamental change because they know that they stand to lose much, much more than the Democrats. Indeed, the two-party system is what best serves the interests of Republicans, the wealthy, conservatives, etc.

For example, a few short years ago, maybe around 5 or so, the Democratic Party of California officially endorsed IRV, and still does. However, when we approached the Democratic Party of Sonoma County, that same attempt failed miserably, despite the fact that the local Dems knew of the official party line at the state level. One of the old ladies present said of IRV, "Oh, that's that New Age thing?" Go figure.

Almost all, if not all, third parties (Greens and others) support IRV and PR for obvious reasons: it's the only chance they've got of ever seeing any substantial amount of political power. And there is nothing wrong with this, in my opinion. When I attended the local Green Party meetings in Santa Rosa, I read their statutes and saw that both IRV and PR are officially endorsed by them as future policy (if they ever get the chance to legislate and implement them).

If you are serious about this kind of reform then join the 2 groups I mentioned above. Approach different organizations and propose that they elect their internal leaders by using IRV and PR, if applicable. Talk to your friends and family about these ideas so that at least they are aware of the idea; this spreads conciousness and this is part of the strategy.

Any ideas?

Edward



Aahh, there's the rub. Re: Proportional Representation and Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) vs. the one party masquerading as two system in place. How would we get the people, and "parties", in power to give up the very system that insures they stay in power?

This conundrum has been mentioned here on waccobb many times. So far I've not seen anyone propose a plan that has the remotest viability.

As for constitutional amendment, given the level of hysteria (Yes, I know it's a sexist word), demagoguery and shear hatred for others in the land, I am very leery of what might come out of it. And again, why would those in a position to make it happen, allow it, given that it might, even likely would, undermine their lock on "legitimate" power?

The problems are systemic. That's why chipping away at the margins; impeachment over policy disagreements, Tea Party babel, abolishing the Federal Reserve Bank, just to name a very few in a myriad of options, are inadequate solutions. And that assumes they're doable, which given the array of entrenched interests, they're not.

This is much larger question. And an old one. How do we fundamentally change our society in order to enhance our values? The old leftist debate about reform vs. revolution was all about that.

I advocate a mass movement of non-violent direct action affinity groups, and by mass I think it's going to take hundreds of thousands, if not millions, who engage in more than symbolic protest, but actually put their/our bodies on the gears of the machine. That's a potential form of popular and direct democracy that I have, and could again, put my time, efforts and money behind.

"Some people say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one..."

Of course, getting that many people to agree on our goals...have you ever herded cats? I have tried, had brief moments of success, and failed, so far...We're going to need a LOT of tuna!!!!

[podfish]

'failure' is too strong. I'd love to see how pure democracy would work, if someone would try it. I don't think I'd volunteer to be ruled by its results, though, till I get to see how it fails. I think most people I've met have some pretty wacky ideas as to how things should run, and I'm sure they return the feeling. I'm not excited about turning power over to them, though, because I know there's more of them than me.


LeninSebastopol:
Thanks for putting in your two cents.

Yes, I thought that I was clear. Representation is a failure. We have the tools to replace it. Why are we unwilling to see how pure democracy would work?...

Sciguy