the stimulus and the two party system

Well politics is taking a fascinating turn as we head into this new administration. What will Obama do? What will congress do? How will the Republicans and Democrats work together or will they? How will Republicans act, with future elections on their mind. The two party system deserves a look at this time as well. If Obama and the democrats succeed in fixing our current problems, the Republicans will have a tougher time in the next election. If Obama fails they can make the case we need another Republican president. So how does this system work for the American people? Half of our government is hoping our government fails. Rush Limpballs even said it "I hope he fails!".

So do the Republicans best serve themselves by joining Dems? by obstructing them? or by sabotaging them on the sly?

Look at the stimulus package just passed by the House. Not one Republican voted for it. (this is AFTER Obama pressured Dems to remove key parts of the Bill at the request of the Republicnas) Their spokesperson said it included a bunch of the Democrats' "pet projects" and was a waste of government money. That is helpful: it clearly shows how the Republicans think about government. Roads, schools, healthcare, jobs, renewable energy, breaking our dependancy on foreign oil, these are a waste of money are the silly pet socialist projects of the tax and spend Democrats. This is after most of them voted to give an equal amount of money to wall Street without any oversight or requirements that the banks who get money do anything useful with it. We now know that $18 billion of that tax payer money was used for CEO bonuses. That is how out of wack the system is. These guys drive the world into recession, need the US government to bail them out, and they figure they deserve $18 billion in bonuses.

Their stance does bring one question to mind: what IS their idea of the role of government if not to provide these basic infrastructure projects and social programs? Of course we know the answer; provide a global police state in which the corporate elite can increase their share of the world's wealth. It should be crystal clear. Of course they are good at false advertising so they convince people that government spending is socialism and is BAD, that money given to rich people will trickle down to the poor, and that in a free country people should be able to earn as much as they can without sharing it (even though they could not make that much money without the commonly owned resources and infrastructure that the US allows them to take advantage of). How much money could any of them make if they lived alone on a desert island?
Look at Exxon, in 2008, the year of the recession and gas shock, they made $48 billion in profit! Meanwhile people are being foreclosed on and layed off at record rates and the republicans refuse to tax companies like Exxon. Talk about redustribution of wealth, they say Obama wants to 'spread' the wealth and that is so bad. But the Republicans want to CONCENTRATE the wealth. Which philosophy is more democratic? The republicans want to turn the US into a third world nation, it is as simple as that.

They cry socialism against Obama but look at how much money they are willing to give the military - a socialist military - and now to wallstreet - the socialist banking system.

The other cry of the republicans is that government is the problem. Well that is a self fullfilling proficy when they are in charge of it. But how ilogical is it to say America is this incredible place full of incredible people and we are in fact so good that we need to spread our form of government throughout the world, by force when necessary but that our government can't do anything right and our government is actually the problem. How is it the Republicans think they can run multinational corporations so well but not governments? Of course if you look at the banks right now and corporations like Enron, seems they can't run those well either.

My point in all this is why the hell are they allowed to have any say in our government? OK, they should have a say, let's give them about 20% of the seats in congress, that is generous since they represent the interests of 1% of the population. The libertarians can have 15%, greens 20%, and that leaves 45% for the democrats. Then when Dems want to get legislation passed they will have to pull in some greens or republicans so the dems can't do anything they want, and the minority parties will want to be on the side of helping the dems succeed in order to possibly increase their partie's representation. I think that would be a much better system than the two party 'if we can't win nobody will win' system we have now.

OK, rather than giving them thsese seats what if we simply did it like many European countries and gave out congressional seats according to the percentage of votes the party receives. Then voting for a 'third' party would not be 'throwing your vote away'.

Bottom line, the Republican system failed (supported by many democrats make no mistake), now let's try Obama's version and see if he can do better. I am guessing he can, as long as the Republicans don't sabatage him for their own political interests in our screwed up two party system that is just short of being a true democracy.