Another Election: But US Voters Still Not Being Heard

A poll in Ohio shows independent voters are unhappy with the political system. Previous polls have already demonstrated a low level of trust, among independents especially. 70 percent of respondents reported low satisfaction with Ohio politics, with higher figures among independents than among Democrats or Republicans. Dr John Green, distinguished professor of political science at UA, said:

This unhappiness raises questions about the legitimacy of the political process.

Independent voters thought the political system has been unresponsive to the public, especially on the economy. Participants had a variety of views about the problem:

• we’re not being heard
• politicians were self-serving careerists
• politicians were arrogant and insulated from the problems of the public
• corruption was a common allegation, symbolized by the large sums of money raised and spent in campaigns
• politicians should “wear patches on their suits from their sponsors” like NASCAR drivers.
• people were alienated from the political process
• public officials were puppets of special interest groups.

In the US political system, the buck stops at the presidency, so Obama carried the can, not just for Tea Partyers, but because he had not done enough to address the problems of the average American. But views on Congress were also negative:

• it needed to be revamped
• anything would be better than the system we have now
• members of Congress did not respond to the needs of the public at large
• we just need new people in government
• parties were viewed as hell bent on their own agenda
• parties too far apart on every issue
• it takes years to get anything done
• parties needed to put America first
• parties needed to stay more to the Constitution
• a third or fourth political party was needed to keep the system honest
• a “common sense” party was needed to revive the economy and limit the size of government.

Some thought additional parties would not be “common sense” parties, but a base for lunatics, and would not be competitive. If any were a base for lunatics, it would have to be competitive to match the Republican Tea Partyists. Indeed, many independents were skeptical of the Tea Party agenda, but others were supportive. Many accepted that problems were partly their own fault for not being more involved in politics, but anger and distrust were strong motivations for political activity:

• the people need to exercise their power
• it is time for a revolution

There needed to be more free access and response from politicians:

• more and regular town hall meetings
• quick and thorough responses from contacted officeholders
• a greater presence of politicians in the community
• being a politician should not be seen as a job choice but a service to the country.

These lists of solutions offered are incoherent and inconsistent, illustrating the voter disunity, and failure to comprehend what is happening. It reflect the sense of being ignored by the government among independent voters. There is no way that Americans can solve the problem. They live in a society in which the ordinary people, workers and middle classes, refuse to accept they live in a class society in which the ruling class, the rich elite, control their system from top to bottom. As long as that is so, there can be no change unless the ruling class volunteer to give up some of their wealth and power in a redistribution for fairness and justice. It is not likely to happen. So, revolution is the only option, but that requires unity, and US workers are utterly divided and will remain so while the right wing media are so influential, and their target audience are so gullible.

Voters Hear What they Want to Hear!

People interpret the same election message in different ways, according to their personal political views:

It is possible for two well informed groups of people faced with the same evidence to reach completely different conclusions about what should be done.

Martin McKee and David Stuckler, British Medical Journal

In an American study, three groups who described themselves as Democrats, Republicans or Independents were randomly given four versions of a news story about diabetes. The stories were the same apart from how they described the causes of diabetes—one said nothing while the other three alluded to individual lifestyle choices and social determinants such as economic status.

Democrats and Independents were likely to agree with the social determinants explanation but it had no effect on the Republicans. Democrats were more likely than the Republicans to support action to tackle diabetes, such as restrictions on junk food.

In a study on brain activity in Democrat and Republican research participants exposed to contradicting messages from both parties, those registered as Republicans identified the contradictions voiced by Democrat politicians, but saw little contradiction in statements by Republicans, and vice versa:

Politicians are often criticized for being all things to all people and for making promises that they then fail to keep. However the problem may be less what the politicians are actually saying but rather how their words are heard and interpreted.

Jail the Banking Confidence Tricksters

Clever bank executives lend money at mortgage to poor people unlikely to be able to repay it. The bankers do not mind because the housing market is rising. They know that when they inevitably foreclose on the mortgage, the property will have risen in value, and they will be able to sell it on, get back their mortgage money and have some left as profit.

This scheme is fraudulent because it is effectively a “Ponzi scheme”, in other words, it is is pyramidal selling. It works as long as the housing market is rising according to expectations. Housing looks like a reliable investment, so people are keen to enter the property market in the hope of making a profit. But eventually, the market will saturate, as it always does once everyone able to enter the base of the pyramid—expecting to move up it—has done. Once this happens, there is no one left to buy up the foreclosed houses, and expectations change. The housing market stutters. Banks cannot sell foreclosed properties, stop lending on mortgage, and the house market collapses.

The banking gangsters—banksters, as Rooseveldt called them—know this, but cunningly decided to package the mortgages they had lent out into bonds giving anyone willing to buy them a proportion of the annual profit from houses foreclosed and sold on. While the housing market was rising, they looked like a risk free investment and were snapped up by stock market traders and even other banksters. Of course, the banksters knew they had to fail ultimately, so devised a cunning plan to get rich while the gravy train was still running. They paid themselves massive bonuses because they were turning over so much money trading in these junk bonds. Bonuses were in cash, so they did not have to risk holding the bonds. Their customers, including the customers and shareholders of the banks took that risk, and even the general public, because the banksters knew that no government could allow major banks to collapse. So the buck ultimately ended with the taxpayer—you and me!

That is what happened, and that is why banks have been given $trillions to bale them out—$trillions of our money.

And have the governments sought to catch the banksters who devised this scam, and others like it, doling out $billions of our money in bonuses to themselves? Not a bit of it. Politicians hope to get their rewards when they leave office by cashing in on the gratitude of the banking gangsters by becoming one.

We all knew it was a scam, except—it seems—governments. But the banks have been so blatant and unconcerned that they will be caught and convicted that they have been utterly blasé about it all. Now we have evidence, perhaps proof, that Goldman Sachs knew all along they were acting fraudulently. One of its executive directors emailed:

The whole building is about to collapse… only potential survivor, the fabulous Fab [himself, Fabrice Tourre]&hellip standing in the middle of all these complex highly leveraged, exotic trades he created without necessarily understanding all of the implications of these monstrosities!!!

He understood enough to know the bonds were junk and were about to collapse, but Goldman Sachs approved because he was indemnifying the business by selling the bonds while being in collaboration with Paulson and Co who were short selling the bonds knowing they were junk, so they could buy them at less than they sold them, profiting from the knowledge that they were bound to end up worth less.

Meanwhile Goldman Sachs the famous banksters are paying out $5 billion in bonuses. Or rather we are paying out the banksters $billion bonuses.

It has to be time these people were charged. Do not vote for anyone who does not:

1. undertake to stop banking fraud
2. puts the fraudsters on trial and jails the guilty ones at the top
3. breaks up banks that are considered too big to fail
4. splits lending banks from trading banks
5. properly and firmly regulates the banks that remain.

UK Election: 6 May. Who to Vote For!

The PM, Mr Gordon Brown, has asked the Queen to dissolve Parliament so that there can be an election on 6 May. The electorate now have a month to make up their minds who they want to rule them for the next five years.

They should not vote for any candidate who will not agree to:

• Tax the banks to get back the money New Labour gave them.
• Repeal all the bad and oppressive laws that New Labour introduced and are lying unused until some fascist decides to do so.
• Abandon the neoconservative myth of the War on Terror that Blair got from Bush and Cheney to keep people worried about nothing, and pull out of Afghanistan.

If they don't agree, then don't vote for them. Simple!