You Could Change All That, It's Why You Are Where You Are

Remember when we all voted for change, because we felt the country was going down a dangerous path towards dictatorship,and someone needed to put a stop to it? Then we all hoped that by putting the Democratic Party in charge that they would do what they were elected to do?
Boy, were we suckers.
Because, once again, as we did seven years ago, we have FBI agents raiding the homes of antiwar activists. You know, the protesters the media completely ignored? Someone was listening, Big Brother.
Speaking of change, wasn't President Obama going to bring an end to the war in Iraq? Yeah, right. And antiwar activists are giving material support to the enemy. Sounds like something out of the Bush administration, but no, it's an ongoing policy.
The Democratic Party is concerned of losing seats in congress to the G-O-Tea Party. Instead of standing up for real progressive issues, and ending the insanity that is the War Party, they choose instead to continue on with it, lest they be seen as weak. But by doing so, they are weak, afraid to stand up to the minority party, and not doing a lot to compel those people who might vote for them to leave their houses and, well, vote for them. Sure, losing the House may help Obama in 2012, but what about helping us, now? Be the Change. It why you were elected.

Change Can Wait, WE Need To Hold Our Majority So We Can Do Nothing Conclusive For The Next Two Years

As an excellent example of the screwed-up priorities of the Taxed-Enough-Already crowd, they protest when President Obama bails out GM, they protest when President Obama tries to provide health care to millions of fellow American citizens with out any, but when the Senate approves billions more in funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not a peep. Even while the Pentagon cut pay for soldiers in Iraq, making this nothing more than a bailout for the Military-Industrial Complex, nothing from the television watching soldier sniffers.
This is also a prime example of the lack of difference between the Republican and Democratic Parties. The Democrats, who gained a majority by exploiting the antiwar sentiment in 2006, and again in 2008, voted for funding a war that Gen. McChrystal has termed a draw. So dumping more money into this sinkhole would be a waste of tax-payer money, right?
Yes, but, being an election year, rather than stand on principal, the Democrats instead choose to let their decisions be guided by their desire to hold onto their cushy jobs where they can bet against the stock market as they pass legislation to deregulate it and probably invest heavily into defense contractors, all with the salary they made from, us, the tax payer.

Only A Pawn In Their Game

“If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.”Sen. Jim De Mint (R) SC

This is what the health care debate in this country is about. With 47 million uninsured people in this country, the GOP is willing to let them twist in the wind to prove that they still haven't gotten over losing the last election. Their solution to the problem? "Don't get sick" says the man able to afford the doctor shop to fill his OxyContin addiction, or find a doctor willing to put his name on your Viagra prescription. There's the core of compassionate conservatism-protecting unborn babies, until they get born, contract a disease, then you're on your fucking own buddy, I've got a sport utility behemoth to keep filled with gas and an energy inefficient McMansion to heat.
The truth is we have the finest health care system in the world, if you can afford it, but if you can't, oh well, the government has more important things to spend theiryour money on, like paying money to build bombs to drop on countries, then paying to rebuild the countries they dropped bombs on. They can rush to the aid of incompetently run banks, giving them billions of dollars and bailouts, but the won't help the homeless, the unemployed, or those whose lives are about to be destroyed by a looming health care issue.
As an example of how screwed the system is: the company I have been working for the last years at was recently sold. The new owners are bringing in a different insurance carrier. Having been lucky (or healthy) enough to not see a doctor for the last three years, do you think I would get a rebate from the old carrier, since I never used them these last few years? Worse than that, a number of people who work for us are older than me, and have had a number of health issues. Their information is being passed along to the new carrier. How many of them will have to worry about claims being rejected because of pre-existing conditions?
The truth is, a lot of things in this country are already socialized: our defense, our police, and our fire departments. We do this because they make society better as a whole. Yet you'll never hear anybody complaining about having to pay money for those people who are careless with inflammable materials, or have too much stuff tempting criminals to rob them. But when it comes to health and well being of our own fellow Americans, suddenly patriotism goes out the window, and you're on your own now buddy.
Our politicians (who, need I remind you, have their health care taken care of for life) are playing a game. One side, too pussified and invertebrate to do what's right, are holding out for a bipartisan approach. And the other side just wants to stick it to the guy who stuck it to their mavericks (remember them? The one maverick who was going to reach across the aisle, and the other one who couldn't stick out her job? How are they workin' out for ya?) to prove a point. And in the middle, suffering while they play, are millions of Americans, who are nothing but pawns to the political elite.