A couple of weeks ago, I broke a personal rule of mine and brought up politics on my page. Since making that post, I reminded myself that if you’re not living on the edge, you’re not living. So with that in mind, I decided why not just belly flop right back into the swamp again.
A few weeks ago I mentioned that BOTH political parties equally were a Captain Planet sized s*** parade right now in America. Now, I am not here to debate the specificity of each political party’s legitimacy or merit. Rather, I wanted to take a moment to elaborate on why I said that both parties, more or less, are a dumpster fire and neither should claim particular superiority over the other. So without further ado, here is why I say that:
One party says:
“People shouldn’t have to pay their hard earned money to provide health care for some lazy Ne’re-do-wellers would rather have an iPhone than health insurance.”
Then the response from the oppositional party is:
“Millions of people are going to die if any changes in healthcare legislation and subsidiaries for low-and middle-income Americans or the expansion of low-income Medicaid are made! People are going to DIE!”
Then the first party responds with something crazy that probably doesn’t even contain the words, “health” or “care” even in it. Conversely, the opposing party responds in kind.
The next thing you know, we are hearing about how Abraham Lincoln was actually a member of one particular party, and therefore de facto one party is solely responsible for the abolition of slavery. If you think about it, this is incredible to bring up, because it eludes to the fact that the best contradictory evidence one can find to demonstrate the willingness to stand up for what’s right and actually put the American people first, even if it may not be the most universally popular idea at the time, is to cite something that occurred 127 years ago.
I mean hell if that actually gets people excited, I should actually enter politics and re-establish, (or technically form) the Continental Party. Every single debate, I will simply say, “My party wrote the Declaration of Independence, founded America, and wrote the Constitution of the United States.” Then simply drop the mic and walk off the stage.
In all honesty, what actually happens, is a discussion that started about healthcare, ends with me having the horrifically disturbing revelation that America’s political leadership and the entire dual party establishment is actually incapable of effectively using something as simple as email.
In my newly formed Continental Party, if we were that bad at efficiently sending electronic correspondence amongst each other, we would realize our remarkable weakness, and just go ahead and bring back horseback mail carriers to communicate with each other.
The reason that both parties are equally a s*** parade is that not only does 98% of supporters of both parties have no clue what any health bill actually contains within it, we are additionally no closer to reaching a solution than when we started. Frankly, 98% of the politicians probably have no clue what any of these health bills say.
At the end of the day, it’s like the old saying, “The fish stinks from the head down.” Modern activism is a product of modern politicism. Thanks to modern politics, people think that problems are solved by the biggest crowds, and making the other side look stupid, or calling them the enemy. However, it’s not the other side that the politicians are making look stupid. Rather it’s us, the American people. Better yet, they are treating us like we are all stupid.
Given that same example regarding healthcare, the appropriate response doesn’t require one to be so dramatic and cry out how changes in healthcare bills equate to genocide against the populous. Instead, the appropriate response is exactly the truth.
“Ladies and gentlemen, to suggest that the American people don’t want to pay for someone else’s healthcare, is probably one of the craziest things that you will hear all day. Possibly all week."
"Paying into a system that funds the care of others is actually, literally, the very definition of insurance."
"Health insurance is not a savings account. In fact, people pay for health insurance in hopes that they never have to use it; because when one uses their health insurance that means they are in need of health care. Any insurance service involves paying for others care, under the assurance that if one needs care, themselves, they will equally receive assistance."
"Therefore, when my political opponent decides they would like to discuss legitimate concerns to health care legislation, I’d be more than happy to discuss them."
"Most importantly, when my partisan rival decides they would stop addressing the American public, including their own supporters as if they are too unintelligent to understand health care issues beyond fervent soundbites, I’ll be glad to have a discussion.”
Currently, the melodramatic zeal that has overcome politics, has become the exact way that American’s have come to engage each other when it comes to conflict resolution. Basically, no one is willing to engage in legitimate debate or discussion. Rather, we merely beat each other over the head with who can outdo the other person with theatrical personal insults.
In a way, this comes back to the age old, "what came first, the chicken or the egg?" Essentially, are our politicians “dumbing down” complex issues because, we, the people, are dumb? Or are we, the people, playing along with the silly game and assuming we are dumb?
The end result, of “dumbed down” politics is that 98% of Americans, either hate or love a government health care bill, that they have no clue what is actually contained within it.
The biggest losers in all of this are the people. Primarily, because most modern legislation relates to either providing an advantage or imposing a restriction on some economic sector. When that sector is restricted it affects a sector’s existing profit margin. When profit margins are affected, then a business’ quarterly “Earnings vs. Estimates” sheet is affected. A profit loss, coupled with a negative “Earnings vs. Estimates” report can spell disaster for a large public company’s stock options.
To offset any potential windfall from legislated restrictions, a particular corporate interest will pass on any imposed increases in operational cost to the consumers. Ultimately, the consumer’s cost of living increases, and their quality of living decreases. Essentially, the people are punished in order to ensure that a corporate sector can expand their revenue and increase its collective quality of life.
The aforementioned scenario is exactly why some people were told to hate the Affordable Healthcare Act. Among many key provisions in the Act, one imposed extra fees to the tune of $84.8 billion dollars, on pharmaceutical companies from 2013 to 2023. This was done to close the “doughnut hole” in Medicare Part D. Of course, clearly, it would be absurd to make the pharmaceutical sector, which brought had a net profit margin of 30% in 2016, have to fork over some cash to pay those fees. So, instead, the increase in fees is passed on to consumers.
This is why the Kaiser Family Foundation reported that across all major U.S. cities the cost of health insurance rose 10.1% in 2016. The rising cost of health insurance was a result of the fact that drug prices rose nearly 10% in 2016. All of these increases coming at a time when the overall inflation rate was just 1% in the United States.
The median household income rose 5.2% from September 2015 to September 2016. However, based on the offset for inflation, the median household income only rose 4.2%. Now, if you factor in the 10% increase in cost for health insurance that a majority of American’s felt, this ultimately means, that the average American household’s income decreased -5.8%.
Ultimately, the reason we see politics the way it is currently is because BOTH sides have to take the issues they are discussing, shake them…stir them, and then serve it to the public as soft-serve s*** yogurt because the ultimate truth is neither side operates under an obligation to the people. Rather, both sides merely operate on the behest of larger financial and corporate interest. The only real difference is the economic sectors they are shackled to.
Democrats are committed to the information technology, media, and the federal government as an industry in and of itself. Conversely, Republicans are loyal to the energy, industrial, and consumer discretionary sector. As a side-effect, larger government and regulation are bad for businesses in these areas, therefore, smaller government is a principle tenant in Republican ideology.
The most profitable economic sectors in the U.S. in 2016 were: The pharmaceutical sector, Financial Sector, and the Information Technology Sector. In 2007, the list of top earners was the Energy Sector (crude-oil production, gas equipment, and services), pharmaceutical sector, and the Financial Sector. Notice, the pharmaceutical and financial sector is an ever present staple when it comes to who’s swimming in cash like Scrooge McDuck; however, it is that third place spot on the “Big Three” that fluctuates depending on the partisan control of the government at the time.
Ultimately, the reason both parties in the United States are a one-star s*** parade is because, as a result of the political system in place, both parties are components established to help try to hold up an extremely top-heavy system. The actions by a particular party are dependent on which side of the weighted scale being balanced above the heads of the American people. As they tip one side of the scale to give the advantage to their loyal industry, the scale dips down and pushes against the public on the opposite side.
The harsh truth is at the end of the day; we have no one to blame but OURSELVES! It is us, the people, who are playing their silly game!
The reason the politicians are beholden to industry giants and not the people is because it takes the industry’s money to even compete, much less, win an election nowadays. We can blame the Democrat or Republican National Conventions for colluding within, in order to decide what candidates the people get to choose. Assuredly, a case can be made showing that the DNC acted anything but fair in last year’s Democratic primary between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.
However, it all boils down to, we, the people, making the choice when we pull a lever or push a button in a voting both, that second Tuesday in November. We choose to allow ourselves to be influenced in our decision making processes by choosing the candidates who have the better marketing package, and de facto the financial resources to advertise as if it is a blockbuster summer movie; and well... that’s on us.
The truth is a person who would truly be dedicated to the country and the people as a whole, would have to be someone who was willing, to tell the truth. Someone who was willing to point out that the inadequacies in legislated processes come from the fact that they are not actually done with the interest of the people in mind. It would have to be a person who wasn’t deeply embedded within the Washington establishment but also wasn’t already a billionaire business mogul.
The only way someone will ever care about the people is if, indeed, they are of the people. Most importantly, in order to maintain that responsibility to the people, that person would have to be elected by the people and not by the fiscal resources of the big business complex.
Basically, if Americans ever want to have a political system that works for themselves, the people; then the American people are essentially going to have to try to find the next Abraham Lincoln or some kind of American King David. As unrealistic as that may sound, it assuredly will never happen, unless the people are open and willing.
So yes, both parties are a one-star s**** parade, however, it is our fault because we allow it. Therefore, if we ever want anything different, it will be our responsibility to fix it.
Now, before anyone asks… No. I cannot ever run for political office.
Why? Well, because I told my wife, if I ever ran for office, this would be my political poster.
I’m a man of my word, and I’m afraid that if I did end up using this as my sole advertisement… well, my campaign wouldn’t go over too
So until I can use a Photo-shopped poster depicting myself taking back America for the people…politics, I shall not enter.