Our president

When did we lose our voice? Did we sell it?

 

Very true.

 

if we sold it we sure got a shitty deal . . .

so, okay, we have a voice

are we using it?

and if we do, is anyone listening?

 

there are months when i struggle to achieve even that

so, yes

 

It's a case of choosing your audience. I think a lot of us have forgotten that. We can always talk to each other. Thing is we've stopped doing that. Politicians aren't interested in open dialogue, at least not most of them. There are a few exceptions. Bernie Sanders is one.

 

Me too.

 

How are the "monied elites" stopping you from taking the liberty of living your life as you wish?

 

That's true, and if it was not money there would be something else used as the means of exchange, gold, silver, salt, sea shells, raw labor, etc.

I agree that exchange is only as important as you choose to make it, and isn't that essentially how a free market based on supply and demand works?
Who, other than government, has the power to manipulate the exchange that takes place between individuals?

 

I find myself taken aback when I hear so many complain of how difficult they seem to find life today. Even at my age I could find acceptable employment within a week if I desired. Is it a lack of job skills, or just effort today that seems to hold back so many? What does it take to create a responsible citizen in todays world? Have we reached an unsurmountable precipice in societal evolution in which we allow ourselves to dwell bitterly over the fact that the needs and wants of some leave them incapable of attainment, and moves us to look for someone other than ourself to hold accountable?

 

Sanders is a Socialist who represents Vermont. Assuming your location of California is true, this is an example of how U.S. politics has derailed over the last century. You should instead be talking to Barbara Boxer or Diane Feinstein who represent the State of California, or move to Vermont. The Nation is made up of 50 sovereign states which individually should be allowed to exercise within the state any form of government desired by the citizens of that state. If Vermont or California wishes to install a Socialist or even a Communist form of government, they are free to do so. The U.S. Constitution does not contain any limitations I'm aware of that would deny the citizens of a State the form of State government they desire. Where we have gone astray is allowing the Federal government to take power away from the individual states by using the income tax system as a means of redistribution of wealth where bringing home the bacon is the primary focus of our elected politicians which assures their reelection while increasing the debt.

The problem of being heard is that the politicians listen to those with money and have divided the population against one another allowing them to sit back and watch us argue based upon class or rich versus poor, while they implement laws and programs which only increase the power and wealth of the rich, including themselves, while diminishing the middle class, making the poor grow in number and even poorer and more dependent upon government. The poor are but a tool of the rich.

 

it's just all so, so, . . . cynical.

 

upgraded to dare

i'd meet you at the airport but it's a long walk

 

Since indisputable proof exists that the earth is not flat I cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, see that such is an issue – and is therefore not debatable. There has always been and will always be debate about the role of government – it’s one of the good parts of our system of government.

Agreed: Government can and does over regulate. You site two very good examples, i.e. paper work for small business (any business for that matter) and the patriot act. One of the larger problems with the patriot act is its granting of authority to certain government agencies to enact and enforce administrative (non-legislated) regulation. While the intent of the act may have been noble (even if somewhat knee-jerk), it is too far reaching. Based on my own experience, some of the security measures resulting from administrative regulation are ridiculously ineffective and unnecessary.

While the government does not currently control every aspect of our lives, the trend is certainly in that direction. For every benefit a government provides, another is likely to be removed or restricted in some form or fashion.

Control of the press is a sticky issue. My own wish is that they ALL had to just tell the truth without any “spin”. I suppose such would not hold the attention of the viewing public. It has gotten to the point that if one doesn’t like the “news” on one network, just change the channel, the other one will have a different set of “facts” regarding the same issue. One has to be must predisposed (or very nearly so) to believe whatever network they favor. I would like to have the plain straightforward information and be able to form my own opinion. The media’s staggering ability to influence the results of elections and the decisions of our leaders is a BIG problem. I have no idea of any real solution for it other than try to see through the bullshit.

The statutes regulating campaign contributions are, like so many of our laws, so complicated with so many loopholes, that it's near impossible to know how much to whom…

My contention in favor of smaller government is that such would mean fewer “programs” of any type – thereby increasing the incentive by everyone to produce and earn more. I realize it is infinitely more complicated than can be explained in a single sentence, but that’s the general idea. The problem with more regulation for the large corporations is that the same regulations usually apply to smaller businesses. The already mega-corps have more ability, with legal departments of perhaps hundreds of members, to navigate through the maze of regulatory details, requirements, exemptions… than the smaller businesses that the regulation was originally intended to help or protect. Perhaps current regulatory statutes dealing with anti-trust and unfair practice issues have too many holes in them. The large corporations too easily buy our politicians.

The victims of genocide do indeed have a much greater need than any group I know of in the US. The problem is that we have, more than once, ended up fighting a people that we previously saved from destruction.

You’re absolutely right: the INVASION of Afghanistan does not qualify as “aid”. The $52 billion (according to a 2010 congressional report) handed over to their government in the last ten years certainly does. I completely agree that both wars were ill-conceived: In Iraq we removed a dictator who, as bad as he was, kept the region under control without the continued tribal fighting we have seen since Saddam’s deposal; In Afghanistan, we’re supposedly trying to route an enemy who is friendly with some of our other “friends”. Others besides Bush deserve some of the credit for both wars – Obama, and others now pointing the blame finger, supported both when they were popular ideas.

In Zimbabwe, pick one: our flooding the area with surplus food nearly bankrupted the country’s farmers in the 80’s, we bailed them out with billions in the 90s; our on-going program to reduce the incidence of AIDS, unwanted pregnancy, and “baby dumping” which cost millions every year without noticeable decrease in the infection rate, the pregnancy rate, or the number of abandoned babies. There are many more – direct and indirect – eventhough we have officially suspended all direct aid packages due to human rights violations. (Note: We may have lifted some restrictions on direct aid in the last few months.) By the way, just this year Zimbabwe agreed to provide Uranium to Iran in exchange for fuel.

Your metaphor aside, my point is still that we should worry more about our own country and less about others. How can we stand for anything if we do not take care of our own which without doubt would make us better off in the long term.

Voluntary military service or otherwise, our armed forces are controlled by a civilian Commander in Chief and the civilians of the US Congress – most of whom have no idea of military strategy or the abilities of any fighting force. It is a soldier’s duty to fight when and where is called upon even though he may know that his is an impossible mission. It is saddening that justification for a soldier’s fighting and dying at the whim of those who would scarcely lift a hand in their own defense has become that “they have agreed to that duty”.

Eventhough there was US involvement in Libya; “a lot of innocent civilians” have still died and will continue to die. Defeating Qaudaffi, who officially holds no office or title in the government of Libya, will take boots on the ground. I certainly hope you’re right – that US soldiers will not be wearing them (“supplying them” equates our servicemen, by my thinking, to material or goods). Even if Quadaffi leaves of his own volition, the fighting will likely continue until some sort of government is established, which could be years. At least Qaudaffi is a known entity – his replacement may be worse than he is.

By education, I did not intend to imply that everyone should have a college degree – everyone is not suited for such or for the level of employment that might be expected as the result. As you say, many jobs have been and will continue to be eliminated by automation. And, some do hold jobs for which they are over qualified – not however to the point that such has become a detriment to our economy. Our problem is that we (the US) produce relatively little in the way of durable goods. Part of the reason is the way we think and live – we have become a lover of disposables, a society of consumers rather than producers, i.e. we had rather have a new gizmo every few days, weeks, months rather than buy a better gizmo that will last longer. Other countries of the world have chosen to fill our demand for such cheaper products – the US cannot compete due a number of reasons – our standard of living (high wages) is one, government regulation and taxation is another, lack of demand by our own population for quality, lasting goods is another. Then, there’s immigration – both legal and illegal.

There’s no easy solution: we cannot and should not lower the wages of the American worker. One thing we should do is support the American worker by buying the goods he produces, even if those goods do cost a little more – the money we’d spend would go into the pocket of the neighbor next door or across town, across the state, or across the country – but, it would still be in the country buying the goods that other US workers produce. In time, we would recover at least some of our production capacity and more jobs would be available.

Many people “stake a claim” very day – they find a market for goods or services and start a new business to fill that market. In some ways, starting a new business is easier than ever: there are more people available as clients or buyers. In other ways, it is harder than ever: more government regulation and taxation at all levels, higher cost of doing business in general… – the mom and pop establishment is about pooped. The true craftsman is all but gone because the demand for his product is, too.

In stead of teaching what to think, we need to teach how to think – the process of reasoning without every stinking detail being pointed out. All of the education we need can’t be found in a classroom. It is a set of values, a sense of pride in one’s accomplishments, and a sense of self-worth without simply sitting around thinking how “it sucks to be me” and waiting on a government check.

Is Obama the reason for all of our problems? No. Bush? No. It’s easy to focus on the man at the top. Is Obama the solution to any of our problems? Again, no. We, as Americans, are to blame for most of our plight. It is up to us to fix what's broken.

After reading and watching the news over past months, even years, I have come to suspect that no one – not multitudes of journalists with any manner of spell-checking or proof reading, not the government of the most powerful nation on earth, neither you nor I – really knows how to spell the name of the leader of Libya.

 

56olddog: Nice post.

Wondering if everyone really knows the definition of some words used in these forums?

Some words like Democracy, Republic, and Commonwealth, and more importantly the form of government under which the U.S. was created and why.

 

The saddest part of this presidency and the new digital format its in, is how little people are paying attention. If you go to youtube. Type in 'white house'.

The white house has had its own youtube channel for some time, and no one looks at the fucking thing. Every single event that they president has been at, is on there in full and in HD quality. People who constantly complain about Obama not doing enough really frustrate me. Its obviously because they aren't paying attention.

FOR EXAMPLE.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ypVArkbsn8"]YouTube - Facebook Town Hall with President Obama

This is him, answering questions from the people. No scripts, no prompters, just a relaxed obama telling the people what he's doing about certain issues, and informing him about how things are done. If people spent half the time they waste on conventional tv programming on this kind of stuff. I would bet that we would have higher voter turnouts, and a more involved country overall.

Anyone agree or dis-agree?