That Congress actually cared about working people. But I don't see it happening.
The Republicans don't give a shit, that has been plain to see. If it doesn't involve cutting taxes for rich people, the GOP is against it. The Democrats have proven within the last year that they are just as much in thrall to those fuckers in Wall Street and in the banks who brought this economy to its knees as are Republicans; the only difference being that the Republicans, other than George Bush, were willing to run the economy right off the cliff.
Both parties are betraying those who work for a living. I don't buy the concept that the GOP, as a party, can tap into that sentiment, as it was the Republicans (and Alan Greenspan) who stood aside and cheered as the banks and the investment houses poisoned the economy (and took hefty paychecks for doing so). The premier so-called "populist" Republican is a semi-literate who resigned from elective office because it was too hard. The leading candidate, as of this time, is a guy who made a fortune by shipping American jobs overseas and arranging offshore arrangements for tax evaders.
Democrats have been no better. Rep. Barney Frank has been working diligently to water down any reform of the banks. And if you have read this blog for any length of time, you know that I regard Treasury Secretary Geithner as someone who, just like his Republican predecessor Henry Paulson, is loyal to Goldman Sachs and the rest of those greedy fucks, not to the American people.
It goes deeper. A clear majority of Americans want to see serious health care reform and to have a public option plan. The Senate, however, is more interested in protecting the interests of the health insurance industry than it is in reforming a health system that spends more than any other industrialized nation and covers a far smaller percentage of the population. Any tax reform bill always incorporates more and better tax breaks for the rich and the powerful.
So we have two political parties who don't give a fuck about those who work for a living. I don't know what the alternative is right now. The Libertarians are, to put it succinctly, batshit crazy. There is nobody else right now. But history is clear on one thing: If a governmental system does not provide for the common good and only looks out for the already privileged, eventually an alternative arises. Most of the time, that alternative comes with a large butcher's bill and the end result is not very satisfactory.
Cat Pawtector!
2 hours ago
2 comments:
I'm thinking Mme. DeFarge is stocking up on yarn and sharpening her knitting needles right about now, preparatory to becoming a "consultant" for the disgruntled masses.
There's whole bunch of "let them eat cake" types in Congress that may have an unpleasant appointment coming up.
I was going to suggest the DFL...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Democratic-Farmer-Labor_Party
...until I read this:
"Humphrey in 1968 and Mondale in 1984. Both were unsuccessful, losing to Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, respectively."
Oh well. It's tough to settle for a Cater or a Clinton...until you think of having a Nixon, Reagan or "W" for a President.
Don Brown
Post a Comment