Forum Post: Lest we forget who started this economic mess.. both parties !!!!
Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 5, 2011, 9:35 a.m. EST by ThirdParty2012
(52)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
It's time for a third party my friends... neither democrats nor republicans are competent to lead
http://mediacanards.com/2011/09/19/what-caused-the-financial-crisis/
http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/MoneyBanking/Economics/Crises/NYTimes1991.pdf
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4568925/ns/politics/t/bush-ties-tax-relief-home-ownership/#.Toxbt8lFuso
The Dems started the mess, the republican's buddies profited from it...
Don't let either party high-jack this movement !
The Republicans and Democrats pretend to have different agendas and put on a good show. Both the both end up supporting higher taxes for the middle class, endless undeclared wars, and inflation through the Federal Reserve.
The news commentators correctly, and sadly, point out that this movement isn't articulate or specific in it's objectives. Campaign funding reform and term limits would be a great start. I do believe special interests and career politicking/power brokering need to end. Anyone takers?
congress,senate and wall st.created this mess.The rich politicians and their families and friends with big money investment in wall st.
A 3rd, 4th or 10th party is not the answer. For examples, look at other countries, particularly emerging markets. In the end there will always only be 2 or 3 main parties with the others being 'bought' and 'sold' depending on how many votes they can take away/add to etc. All just a big game and the same mess.
The root problem is the U.S.'s Republic Form of Government itself - with 535 easy to target senators & representatives (or, the 'bottleneck'), it will always be controlled by big business and the wealthy (also this form of government works great for small, homogeneous countries, like Norway, Finland, or the U.S. in 1776 with 2.5mn like minded people, but totally impractical for large melting pots of the world).
The solution lies in between the Republic Form of Gov. and Direct Democracy as the Achilles heel of D.D. is 'mob rule' - great for revolutions, bad for sustainability. So while everyone should have a voice on the internet, the 'armchair coaches' (i.e. yelling loud but really don't know the subject in any detail) voting weight should be reduced while others who take the time to present thought out ideas (such as LibertyFirst on this thread) given more voting weight.
Also key is that while anyone can comment anonymously, when actually voting and impacting the lives of other citizens, it can ONLY be done under FULL LEGAL NAMES, just like it's done in Congress today (so every citizen can see the voting history, comments, etc.)
take a look around the OSPF site (ospoliticalframework.wordpress.com) for more detailed analysis of this 'middle ground'
Thanks for your input and I agreed with LibertyFirst entirely. The problem is, while I agree with your overall synopsis, achieving that extraordinary of a change of government is not practical in the time frame needed to have a positive effect anytime soon. You do point out the 535 easy targets, the ones that are not just bought off by the corporations but also bought off by foreign governments. Someone thought about cutting off campaign contributions once.... it could have been a step in the right direction. Term limits were a great idea too. But while the foxes are minding the hen-house, that will never happen.
Ah, but we CAN and we must achieve extraordinary change. It's really a pretty simple change--no need to alter our form of government, the constitution, the Bill of Rights--no need for any constitutional amendments. Just remove corporate influence from politics, and then democracy can be restored.
Eliminate corporate lobbying Remove corporate person hood Close the revolving door between regulatory agencies and government I've probably missed a couple of things, but if you prohibit corporations from influencing government, you have won the battle. Changing anything else while not removing the puppet masters will not bring about change. You might get some things that, on the surface, appear to help, but the wolves will still be guarding the hen-house and they will always work in their own best interest. This includes keeping the populace enslaved, indebted and definitely not free. They are masters at convincing people that they are working for them and it is only later that the unintended consequences surface (Patriot Act, Central Banking for starters).
We don't need to change the governmental system, but we do need to free it from corruption. That is all that matters.
Again well stated, we definitely think alike. See my post at the same time you posted that message.. I'm trying to boil it down to something simple to start with, term limits and campaign finance reform, the two major issues the foxes have always seemed to sand bag.
You're defiantly on the right track--just try to broaden your thinking. For example, term limits won't help if the same powers that be are selecting the candidates (via financing and their ownership of the media). They'll just give you a choice of different puppets. Moreover, what if in the future you get a rep who is awesome and consistently, honorably represents the wishes of his/her constitutions? Do you want to be forced to get rid of them? If you want more honest, accountable representation, then you need to ensure that their only means of getting reelected are by truly representing the people, and that means no big money influence. Campaign finance reform is also just a tentacle of the giant squid. If you expect the puppet master to create meaningful campaign financing reform, you will be disappointing. They might pass some 'reforms' but they will not voluntarily give up their influence (power).
Think about the regulatory agencies we have. If you're not familiar with who runs the various agencies, look up their backgrounds. WE have a revolving door between Washington and big corporations. The regulatory agencies are staffed and headed by people who previously worked in the industry they are supposed to be regulating AND when their regulatory term is up, they are hired on by these same corporations for really great salaries. This is the reward for ensuring that regulations are friendly to big business. Geithner is from Goldman Sachs, for example. This is the root of the problem. If you don't eliminate the corruption, nothing will change.
yea, I know my OSPF idea is s a huge leap :-))))) that's ok, I'm just working on it slowly and if it gives others ideas or a few points to consider all the better.
Again, I urge everyone to refrain from pointing fingers at either party. If you believe that one party is to blame and the other party is capable of fixing our problems, I respectfully suggest that you do a LOT more study of the history of American government. Our public education system is pitiful, and this is the result. You don't take a free, open, democratic society and turn it into an oligarchy in 8 years. It takes MUCH longer than that, and this coup has been going on for a very long time under both parties. The party lines are intended to be a distraction--to keep the populace fighting amongst themselves so they don't focus on the 'man behind the curtain'. You really need to understand this, or the 1% are going to eat you alive.
Well, a three-legged stool can actually stand. Unfortunately, we might just introduce a hall of bickering idiots. Well, we already have that.
Now hold on a second! Before we start debating who did what, can we first agree that right now neither party is getting anything done?
Totally agreed.
Please don't create division by blaming one party or another. The corporations didn't gain control of the government overnight (or even during the 8 years of Bush). This bloodless coup has been going on for a very long time and BOTH parties are guilty. It was Clinton who repealed Glass-Stegal, paving the way for the big banks to commit massive fraud and steal the wealth of the people. The government itself--including the electoral process--has been usurped by the .1%.
If you argue policy (like deregulation) you are arguing for change within the current framework. You are asking the thoroughly corrupt and corporate controlled government to reform itself. Policy issues can and should be decided democratically. Keep your eye instead on the big picture--we need to reclaim control of our government.
The only hope this movement has is via strength by numbers. It must be representative of the 99% and you will never get 99% of the people to agree on policy issues. Save that for later. Focus now on getting our representative government back, out of the clutches of big money. That is something the 99% can get behind.
Thanks for a thoughtful response.. well stated
Plus, when all is said and done, we could become a party.
We need a proportional representation. Most other democracies have this, and they have multiple parties.
Sorry. Wrong. The economic collapse happened on Bush's watch after 8 years of relentless deregulation that was spearheaded by the GOP.
You're right, the meltdown happened on Bush's watch. But the last major piece of legislation signed by Clinton was an amendment to the CRA, which enabled this boon-doggle to happen in the first place.. If you're interested in facts, read this.. It was a noble intent.. but nevertheless a huge mistake.. notice that neither party talks about this.. too much blame to equally go around
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/1999/19990616.htm
Yeah, the banks and mortgage bundlers were making bad loans because Clinton forced them to stop refusing loans to blacks. I was totally wrong to just assume that they did it because it was making them filthy rich! Silly me!!
I stand corrected. Loaning money to poor black people caused the depression, not banks creating complex financial instruments designed to assume insane amounts of risk and then dump said risk on the public while keeping the profits.
I'm burning my V mask now.
Nothing to do with blacks or any other group in particular, everything to do with totally "undocumented" loans, to anyone. Literally ANYONE. It became a free for all for every economic class and every demographic. Would you knowingly loan money to someone you knew didn't have the means to ever pay you back? i.e loan someone $100,000 who is only making $8 an hour?
I would in a heartbeat if I knew that I could pass off all the risk to strangers with 401-k's and keep all the profits. I'd do it as much as I could if the more loans I made, the more profit I made, while incurring no additional risk. That's like asking me if I'd like to play Roulette with the houses chips! Watch "Inside Job" for the Cliffs Notes.
Hey, we finally agree. The rules were foolishly relaxed by some, and were predictably exploited by others. But in the end I still say all were to blame. I will say that if you insist that the extreme left has the high ground on economics, perhaps we should discuss Mr. Castro's successes !! Don't worry, the extreme right has their own follies (General Franco)
Mr. Castro and Cuba have done pretty well for a country a stone's throw away from a Superpower that has threatened, blockaded and embargoed them, for decades. Heck, they even have universal healthcare that attracts people from all over capitalist South America. Of course, the rich still come to America - America always has the best of the best.. for the rich.
It's nice that we agree that the rules need to be fixed, though. :)
Well, Castro has been propped up, first by the USSR (which failed) and now by other friendly regimes. I just got off the phone with my cousin in Venezuela, who is always complaining about how fast things are deteriorating there. They now even have food shortages. He tells me that Mr. Chavez will have to cut off the 100,000 barrels of oil a day he gives to Cuba very soon. Why do you think Raul is granting business permits? He needs to lay off 500,000 state workers this year. Being an extremist is never an answer. For the record, I am of Cuban descent and I have to say, Fidel truly squandered a great opportunity in a formerly great country. Perhaps we can all find the middle ground together.
-Facepalm-
Don't worry, not all of us on the left are as stupid as this guy...
I know, and not all on the right are idiots either.. that's why there is a centrist group of intelligent people, left and right, that need to find common ground and make a statement
Hey man why the name calling?
Oh, I'm sorry. Am I wrong? Did the economic collapse happen in September 2008 or not? Is George W. Bush a Republican? Is the Republican Party for or against government regulation?
You are a "leftist" like the Pope's a Hindu.
This guy said that "the Dems started the mess". I was correcting the record.
Some people have a very short memory. George who ? They'd like us all to just forget the 8 yrs. of openly corrupt Gov't under W as if it never happened and was really a golden time no less.
Unless you are 10 years of age or younger, you have no excuse to be this ignorant about history. This problem didn't start with any recent president.. It has been a combination of horrible monetary, trade and foreign policy for almost a century and exaggerated by decisions made by ALL recent presidents, including all the ones you personally support (don't cry).
I strongly suggest you consider doing a bit of studying on American history and economics, you may learn a thing or two.
Oh, so not only do you know how intelligent I am, you also know which presidents I support! Amazing! You really are smart!!
Again, read above.. and like I said both parties are to blame.. and for the record, I neither claim to be left or right.. hence ThirdParty2012