Post by psychecc on Aug 17, 2008 12:38:12 GMT -6
OK, I've got another one. Politicians from both parties who act in the interests of corporate America rather than middle America are common. This is bad enough, but then they add insult to injury by spinning their actions to try and seem as though they really are watching out for their voting constituents.
The recent housing bailout which helps banks and lenders far more than average homeowners, or hopeful homeowners, is a good example. To listen to the likes of Dodd or Rangle, you'd think this legislation is all about helping the homeowners in foreclosure, who by the way, represent less than 5% of the population if my calculations are correct. Yes, those who were tricked and have been building equity do need help, but many in foreclosure are not from that group. What they're really doing here is propping up home prices, thereby holding onto trillions in fake wealth, etc. You all know the details, but it gripes me that so often the politician is doing exactly as s/he is told by K Street lobbyists/contributors, yet spouting verbal vomit about how they're really trying hard to help the people.
While I'm at it, I hate it when mostly democrats admit defeat before the battle begins. "Globalization is inevitable, but we should try to include labor protection in our trade deals." Really sick of this one. They know darn well those labor protections will never be enforced. What they should be doing is protecting American jobs.
Or when Feinstein starts out on voting machine legislation with the assumption that "We can't get paper ballots," so we'll just try to shore up the voting machines. Give me a break! At least fight the fight before you concede.
Last one. Pelosi with her, "We can't stop the Iraq War because the senate doesn't have 60 votes against it." She knows all she has to do is NOT bring up legislation to fund it. The money runs out; the war is forced to grind to a halt eventually, even with all the pentagon reallocation of funds they can muster. But she won't do it because she fears it would upset people to feel we aren't "supporting the troops." In my view that would be the best way to support the troops. She makes a similar argument about impeachment being off the table because Americans want to move forward, not be negative about the past. Clearly, not everyone agrees.
The recent housing bailout which helps banks and lenders far more than average homeowners, or hopeful homeowners, is a good example. To listen to the likes of Dodd or Rangle, you'd think this legislation is all about helping the homeowners in foreclosure, who by the way, represent less than 5% of the population if my calculations are correct. Yes, those who were tricked and have been building equity do need help, but many in foreclosure are not from that group. What they're really doing here is propping up home prices, thereby holding onto trillions in fake wealth, etc. You all know the details, but it gripes me that so often the politician is doing exactly as s/he is told by K Street lobbyists/contributors, yet spouting verbal vomit about how they're really trying hard to help the people.
While I'm at it, I hate it when mostly democrats admit defeat before the battle begins. "Globalization is inevitable, but we should try to include labor protection in our trade deals." Really sick of this one. They know darn well those labor protections will never be enforced. What they should be doing is protecting American jobs.
Or when Feinstein starts out on voting machine legislation with the assumption that "We can't get paper ballots," so we'll just try to shore up the voting machines. Give me a break! At least fight the fight before you concede.
Last one. Pelosi with her, "We can't stop the Iraq War because the senate doesn't have 60 votes against it." She knows all she has to do is NOT bring up legislation to fund it. The money runs out; the war is forced to grind to a halt eventually, even with all the pentagon reallocation of funds they can muster. But she won't do it because she fears it would upset people to feel we aren't "supporting the troops." In my view that would be the best way to support the troops. She makes a similar argument about impeachment being off the table because Americans want to move forward, not be negative about the past. Clearly, not everyone agrees.