Livinglies's Weblog

The bottom line is that regardless of who steps into the oval office next January, nothing will actually change unless the dynamics of political participation by U.S. Citizens changes. It isn’t enough to vote. It isn’t wise to trust any leader to do the right thing. And it isn’t wise to trust that once a policy or program has been approved it will be ever be executed. It is up to us to hold their feet to the fire and to remain interested despite the constraints and demands of our lives. That fire will burn us and not them if we don’t wake up to this essential obligation of citizenship.

 

Both the Conservative and Liberal seek “assistance” from government, which explains that despite the slogans and speeches, government has grown to mammoth proportions regardless of whether it was dominated by democrats (generically liberal) or republicans  (generically conservative). Both seek access to the Public Treasury for their agendas, which explains why spending increases regardless of who is in power. The conservatives seek to direct the money to the top while the liberals seek to direct the money to the bottom.

 

Our citizens end each month further in debt, with less value in assets, and declining income that even a second or third job won’t cure. This is explains why no fiscal stimulus package, and no bailout will “assist” anyone. The ONLY thing that will save our economy, our sovereignty and our economic and political power here and abroad is a fundamental shift in perception and action directed toward revitalizing our population. 

This starts with taking the stress out of where they are going to live (STOP THE FORECLOSURES AND EVICTIONS) and whether they will have something to eat (10% of our population is already on food stamps). It includes medical care (we pay more for medical care than any other country on the planet, yet we deliver less, die earlier and have a higher infant mortality rate) and education (having slid to third world status) that is meaningful for their participation in society and the world. And it means telling the truth to them without using nice-sounding names of programs that are based in self-interest and potentially evil intent. 

 

 

 

Perhaps more than anyone else the one person the current “Conservative” economic policy can be traced to is Andrew Mellon, who served under the three Republican Presidential administrations as Secretary of the Treasury. The roaring 20’s, having antecedents dating back to the Civil War, and fueled by unbridled greed inspired by Mellon and his group of “leaders” created the events leading up to the Great Depression . Mellon of course made a ton of money in various endeavors, just like the other “robber barons” of his age. He was ardently “conservative” in his economic and political philosophy, or so he thought. 

 

If you asked for a definition of a conservative from Mellon or anyone else who is of like mind it would all boil down to one central idea: that the purpose of government is to “assist” private enterprise in creating jobs and wealth for the country. In fact, conservatives conserve nothing and have no desire to conserve anything, except their own rising wealth and power. Looking after one’s own interests is hardly sufficient for condemnation. Catering to one group (corporate interests, and specifically the largest of them) does nothing to conserve the most precious resource any country posses: the people who are citizens and residents of that country. 

 

The inevitable consequence of the so-called conservative philosophy is to concentrate wealth and power into the hands of an ever smaller number of people who eventually will be so taken with themselves that they will commit acts of outright theft and fraud with the assistance of a government that either passes laws to make such acts legal or which does not enforce the laws that clearly describe those acts as illegal. This is clearly the outcome we have been dealing with repeatedly with the boom and bust cycles wherein the corporate titans wring every last piece of value from the treasury of the of the government, from the citizens of this country and from the governments and citizens of other countries. 

 

And yet “conservatism” masquerades as freedom from government interference when in truth without government, the greatest fouls committed in the economic marketplace could never have succeeded without the active assistance of government including direct subsidies for acts that were and are contrary to the interests of the country — like giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas. Like most things in politics it is a lie masquerading as the truth through the mouths of “leaders” who speak with a stright face and a forked tongue. 

 

We have a habit in politics to name things in a way that will distract the public from the real intent of the perpetrators of any particular agenda. We’ll stick with conservatism and liberalism here since that is a current topic of political discourse in this presidential season. 

 

If you asked for a definition of a liberal a/k/a progressive from anyone on that side of the spectrum it would boil down to one central point: that everyone in the country, especially the poor and disenfranchised should receive the assistance of government in seeking a better life.

 

So both the Conservative and Liberal seek “assistance” from government, which explains that despite the slogans and speeches, government has grown to mammoth proportions regardless of whether it was dominated by democrats (generically liberal) or republicans  (generically conservative). Both seek access to the Public Treasury for their agendas, which explains why spending increases regardless of who is in power. 

 

Differences do emerge however. As to conservation of resources (especially our people) conservatives treat our resources as infinite and relatively unimportant, relying upon technology to make up the difference when we run out of something. They completely miss the point that when you run your people into the ground, you have the figurative equivalent of an army that is too exhausted to fight. The battle and the war will be lost if you press forward in that condition. 

 

This is at least an adequate description of the vast majority of the American public — they are exhausted, beleaguered, and demoralized. It is not hard to see how innovation, education, the dollar itself, and the financial markets are in a near state of collapse. Led by trickle down enthusiasts, we have depleted our human resources to the point where we have nowhere to go and the rest of the world knows it. 

 

Our citizens end each month further in debt, with less value in assets, less relevant knowledge that is valued in the marketplace, and declining income that even a second or third job won’t cure. This is explains why no fiscal stimulus package, and no bailout will “assist” anyone — except the usual culprits at the top. 

 

The ONLY thing that will save our economy, our sovereignty and our economic and political power here and abroad is a fundamental shift in perception and action directed toward revitalizing our population. 

 

The Liberal  also treats our resources (natural and human) as infinite but differs in that they identify such resources as important. A nice step, but useless without positively pursuing policies that (as an actual result) conserve and revitalize our people, our economy and our societal fabric. Like their conservative cousins they tend to rely on slogans and speeches rather than accountability and results.

 

The rather obvious conclusion is that we must seek a new political route. It appears as though the American public has been awakened to this need but has been so misinformed and denied access to the truth that they cannot identify by themselves which policies hold the most promise for relieving the ever-worsening conditions in this country and around the world. The voters have been bombarded by interesting but unimportant facts and theories and slogans and speeches. We are seduced into voting against our own interests by exchanging one “leader” for another without knowing that both subscribe to the same dogma and both are seeking to further their own self aggrandizement of power and wealth.

 

In that sense, while the words could have been different, Obama correctly identified the problem with certain voters. They have been abandoned, lied to, and defrauded by promises that were never intended to be kept. They are angry and bitter about their loss of jobs, wealth, and prospects. When voters get angry they seek change, but rarely get it. Obama’s “small town” remarks were extremely uncomfortable for a lot of people to hear, but they were true. 

 

Whether you are a supporter of Obama, Clinton or McCain, if you want change, you are going to have to work for it from the ground up. If you rely on the person onstage to cure your ills because they will “fight” for you, they are telling you they have no intent to win — but they would very much like to create the illusion that they are trying to do something for you. They are not and they won’t unless you insist on it. Obama at least, as been courageous enough to speak the truth and to pursue a nuance in politics that I don’t think we have seen since Kennedy or Lincoln. Most people, even the ones that support him, get it at a gut level but really do not understand the dynamics involved. There is no way to say that without sounding condescending. 

 

The bottom line is that regardless of who steps into the oval office next January, nothing will actually change unless the dynamics of political participation by U.S. Citizens changes. It isn’t enough to vote. It isn’t wise to trust any leader to do the right thing. And it isn’t wise to trust that once a policy or program has been approved it will be ever be executed. It is up to us to hold their feet to the fire and to remain interested despite the constraints and demands of our lives. That fire will burn us and not them if we don’t wake up to this essential obligation of citizenship.

Filed under: bubble, CDO, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, inflation, Investor, Mortgage, politics | Tagged: Clinton, Conservative, Liberal, McCain, Mellon, Obama, Treasury |