Anything that goes against what the corporate powers that be is demonized and twisted into a different form through their media outlets to create something that the ill-informed will swallow it no questions asked. Anyone that speaks out against what is obviously wrong with the system is turned into an enemy, while the one’s violating our rights and freedoms are treated like benevolent kings. Recently there have been many successful efforts to subjugate the poorer voters in this country. These measures have passed and it will become difficult for poorer and elderly people to vote in this country. The reason for this is simple, poor people and minorities are more likely to vote for Obama in the coming election and they have more numbers than those that will not.
This organization uses the power of its huge number of members to raise money to elect candidates they consider to be progressive and defeat those who stand in the way of change. I found myself taking much pause when I read about this particular topic. I am not old enough to remember if politics has always been about who ever raises the most money to make his or her opponent look bad, wins the election. It is rather unsettling that on their website there is a petition to “Take Big Money out of Politics” when this website and the millions of member are in fact “big money”. If this this is something MoveOn practices, I don’t think I can support this part completely.
The Tea Party Following the election of President Obama and the rapid growth of the nation's debt, a significant cross section of Americans were becoming increasingly dissatisfied with government spending. These people have formed a rather loose coalition and have taken the moniker “the Tea Party”. Increasingly frustrated with excessive spending, bail outs, and economic hardship, the tea party has accumulated significant support across the nation and has gained the support of a number of important Republican elected officials. As their influence grows, their momentum is gaining more power. The Tea Party is a group that apparently has no intentions of backing down on their goal: to reduce spending and balance the nation's budget.
The sad fact is that the United States system of funding presidential campaigns remains elitist and undemocratic. A public funding system that would make the process more equitable does exist, but is largely unused because it is badly underfunded. In the absence of public funds that would allow them to be competitive, political office seekers depend upon a relative handful of individuals whose large contributions make up the bulk of the money they raise. Special interests by spreading their wealth to all contestants are able to reduce the likelihood that they will be held accountable for their misdeeds. In conclusion, there are various advantages and disadvantages presented on whether campaign financing will ultimatelly benefit.
If the government is taking in more taxes than it needs, what should be done? Seems to me that the most sensible thing to do would be to reduce taxes. Others don’t feel the same way. The recent presidential election was a strenuous one filled with controversy and turmoil. The election being so close showed how divided America really is.
Initially as they become elected with the most altruistic of intentions it seems as if they sincerely believe that they are on the side the people, but the machination of Washington politics tends to slowly exact its toll while they serve their term in office. What drives this machine is money and lots of it, as the amount to run and keep their position is growing exponentially every year. In order to preserve their job while in congress concessions must be made and at the heart of these concessions is basically condoned bribery. In So Much Damn Money: the Triumph of Lobbying and the Corrosion of American Government, author Robert Kaiser quotes Democratic congressman Leon Panetta saying that “ legalized bribery has become part of the culture of how this place operates[ todays House and Senate members] rarely legislate; they basically follow around the money”. Keep in mind that congressman Panetta was referring to his term in office that ended in 1997 which reinforces how ingrained the practice of money pandering has become within congress as well as showcasing that this practice is not new by any means.
The size of campaign donations has become so large that donors certainly expect some kind of payback. A manufacturers’ association will not give $100 000 away just as a gesture of good will; it expects to see its concerns favorably addressed in Congress. And what is good for a particular group of manufacturers may well be bad for the wider public interest. For example, protective tariffs (import taxes) on foreign competitors may raise prices for consumers. Weaker health and safety rules may be bad for
Lobbyists are supposed to be a group of people seeking to influence politicians on a specific issue. The key word in that definition is people, because lobbyists today are no longer people. They are representatives for multi-billion dollar industries and companies, and when was the last time huge corporations really knew what was best for the people? They don’t, they only know what is best for themselves. Lobbyists could be used to get voters demands to Congress after elections, but now most lobbyists are paid by large corruptions to influence lawmakers.
No! It doesn’t matter that this is a free country or not one of the American people’s voices are heard. They are ignored and forgotten about. But if we take a closer look this Country is not the only one affected by this travesty of debt. The whole world is in turmoil over debt.
California has been so mismanaged by its governors and legislature that it is billions in debt. This most politically correct, politically liberal State continues to struggle to provide affordable electricity and, as noted, is desperately trying to provide water. The CAPS report does not address the issue of crime, integral to the increase in immigration, but it too must be considered. Soon enough it will begin to export its immigration problems to contiguous