It's Still A Pig

One thing is clear, if this country has any chance of returning to a government for the people, the old and young alike must become educated to what it takes to elect public servants that defend the United States constitution. We as citizens of this country must look through the blinding mist of political packaging of campaign candidates. In 1968 Joe McGinnis wrote, “The Selling Of The President.” He revealed how Richard Nixon was marketed along with the prodigious amount of funds from lobbyists to gain the White House. This trend continues. It shows how an unlikely pig can be dressed up and sold as a “Charming Prince”...but underneath, it is still a pig. So many uninformed people, vote blindfolded. Slogans seem to rule over substance. I get so sick of campaign advertising that is on the mental level of a cockroach, knowing most of it has nothing to do with real issues that citizens so desperately need answers too.

If you remember, the cost of the 2012 Presidential campaign was well over one billion dollars and Senate campaigns spent over 25 million each. For that kind of money, surely we got something in return. What we got are failed immigration policies, Obamacare, government shutdown, job loss, loss of citizen privacy, and the list goes on and on. Obama is not the only one to be concerned about. It is all government officials who accept campaign money from public and private groups, lobbyists and unions. We elect candidates that have their own agendas, or are controlled by someone with their own agendas. To hold power, they will promise all stars overhead while spending our money for their pleasure, and thus, hold unpenetrive power by election manipulation.

We must stop electing candidates who give false advertising and vote for the ones who run on public service alone. And the candidates I am talking about should come from the smart, unselfish, well educated lower and middle class because their agendas for running would more likely be in line with what this country needs to heal itself. I know that statement it’s a stretch to swallow, but a candidate for the people can make a difference, especially if enough of them penetrate the glass ceiling of the “high-seated” powerful. I truly hope enough citizens of this country wake up and start fighting for what made this country great. Campaign contributions and endorsements should be outlawed except for public financing, which should be limited to factual issues rather than false advertising. Public servants in office who are not following what is best for our citizens and our country should be voted out. No exceptions! And furthermore, what about having recall elections for candidates who fails to perform. It’s about substance, not rhetoric in vague terms just to get elected. It is my hope that somehow the people of this nation start demanding candidates and start voting for candidates that have what it takes to turn this great nation around.

-Roy Bud Bonefish Nave

Well said and nobly intended.

It would be nice if more of our citizens paid attention and the news media didn't do most of the deciding on who gets elected to what.

I've said this before, but I can make it really simple.

Vote out all incumbents every election. After 2 or 3 cycles of that, Politicians will know their only choice is to run on public service.

Truly, the news media has the power to steal elections. That was what happened in 2012. Media bias payed big dividends with their coverage of candidates. When they hide failures, praise accomplishments and discredit the opposition, the media can easily influence an election. They are the BIG BULLIE GIANTS with pulsating arteries running throughout politics.

[QUOTE=Bonefish;527299]Truly, the news media has the power to steal elections. That was what happened in 2012. Media bias payed big dividends with their coverage of candidates. When they hide failures, praise accomplishments and discredit the opposition, the media can easily influence an election. They are the BIG BULLIE GIANTS with pulsating arteries running throughout politics.[/QUOTE]
So true......it's become a joke. We need a third party that actually puts a viable option out there for all liberals, conservatives and independents to choose from. It would help get the attention of the crooks we have now.

[QUOTE=know1;527298]I've said this before, but I can make it really simple.

Vote out all incumbents every election. After 2 or 3 cycles of that, Politicians will know their only choice is to run on public service.[/QUOTE]

I don't like that as a BLANKET idea. Incumbents that do a good job should stay........

The blanket statement vote out incumbents is about as bad as vote straight ticket, if you ask me.

BUT I do believe that we should have term limits.

Simply voting out the incumbents essentially means you switch the party for that seat, unless you also mean vote out the incumbents, but if you like their viewpoints, try really hard to vote in the right person in the primaries, otherwise, you get SOCIALIST ********, much like we have today.

I like the premise though.

Later,

Geo

[QUOTE=GeoFisher;527312]I don't like that as a BLANKET idea. Incumbents that do a good job should stay........

The blanket statement vote out incumbents is about as bad as vote straight ticket, if you ask me.

BUT I do believe that we should have term limits.

Simply voting out the incumbents essentially means you switch the party for that seat, unless you also mean vote out the incumbents, but if you like their viewpoints, try really hard to vote in the right person in the primaries, otherwise, you get SOCIALIST ********, much like we have today.

I like the premise though.

Later,

Geo[/QUOTE]
--
Hmmm.. lets see.... vote in the right people

voted in Reagan............. tripled the debt
voted in George bush Jr....doubled the debt

Yeah, we pretty much had that going in the right direction.

[QUOTE=Hlleonard;527318]--
Hmmm.. lets see.... vote in the right people

voted in Reagan............. tripled the debt
voted in George bush Jr....doubled the debt

Yeah, we pretty much had that going in the right direction.[/QUOTE]

where is the LIKE button ? I remember old TRICKLE down, and Bush junior, who in the USA could ever live long enough to forget him. after junior had his say, there wasn't anything left to Trickle down.


In 1980, Jimmy Caner's last year as president, the federal government spent a whopping 27.9% of "national income" (an obnoxious term for the private wealth produced by the American people). Reagan assaulted the free-spending Carter administration throughout his campaign in 1980. So how did the Reagan administration do? At the end of the first quarter of 1988, federal spending accounted for 28.7% of "national income."
Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%—compared with Reagan's 3%—in the government's take of "national income." And in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan's requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted.
The budget for the Department of Education, which candidate Reagan promised to abolish along with the Department of Energy, has more than doubled to $22.7 billion, Social Security spending has risen from $179 billion in 1981 to $269 billion in 1986. The price of farm programs went from $21.4 billion in 1981 to $51.4 billion in 1987, a 140% increase. And this doesn't count the recently signed $4 billion "drought-relief" measure. Medicare spending in 1981 was $43.5 billion; in 1987 it hit $80 billion. Federal entitlements cost $197.1 billion in 1981—and $477 billion in 1987.
Foreign aid has also risen, from $10 billion to $22 billion. Every year, Reagan asked for more foreign-aid money than the Congress was willing to spend. He also pushed through Congress an $8.4 billion increase in the U.S. "contribution" to the International Monetary Fund.
His budget cuts were actually cuts in projected spending, not absolute cuts in current spending levels. As Reagan put it, "We're not attempting to cut either spending or taxing levels below that which we presently have."
The result has been unprecedented government debt. Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight.

[QUOTE=waterdog101;527319]where is the LIKE button ? I remember old TRICKLE down, and Bush junior, who in the USA could ever live long enough to forget him. after junior had his say, there wasn't anything left to Trickle down.


In 1980, Jimmy Caner's last year as president, the federal government spent a whopping 27.9% of "national income" (an obnoxious term for the private wealth produced by the American people). Reagan assaulted the free-spending Carter administration throughout his campaign in 1980. So how did the Reagan administration do? At the end of the first quarter of 1988, federal spending accounted for 28.7% of "national income."
Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%—compared with Reagan's 3%—in the government's take of "national income." And in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan's requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted.
The budget for the Department of Education, which candidate Reagan promised to abolish along with the Department of Energy, has more than doubled to $22.7 billion, Social Security spending has risen from $179 billion in 1981 to $269 billion in 1986. The price of farm programs went from $21.4 billion in 1981 to $51.4 billion in 1987, a 140% increase. And this doesn't count the recently signed $4 billion "drought-relief" measure. Medicare spending in 1981 was $43.5 billion; in 1987 it hit $80 billion. Federal entitlements cost $197.1 billion in 1981—and $477 billion in 1987.
Foreign aid has also risen, from $10 billion to $22 billion. Every year, Reagan asked for more foreign-aid money than the Congress was willing to spend. He also pushed through Congress an $8.4 billion increase in the U.S. "contribution" to the International Monetary Fund.
His budget cuts were actually cuts in projected spending, not absolute cuts in current spending levels. As Reagan put it, "We're not attempting to cut either spending or taxing levels below that which we presently have."
The result has been unprecedented government debt. Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight.[/QUOTE]
--
I don't understand why the right wing latches onto Ronald Reagan to hold up as their saint... looking at his budgetary legacy you would think they calling themselves conservatives would have the opposite opinion... I suspect beings you didn't post a link so they can call it bogus because of where it came from they will automatically disbelieve it so their opinion of him won't be tainted.

The question in the supreme court about limitless campaign donations isn't even drawing any media interest. One particular party believes its right to buy the government.

[QUOTE=waterdog101;527319]where is the LIKE button ? I remember old TRICKLE down, and Bush junior, who in the USA could ever live long enough to forget him. after junior had his say, there wasn't anything left to Trickle down.


In 1980, Jimmy Caner's last year as president, the federal government spent a whopping 27.9% of "national income" (an obnoxious term for the private wealth produced by the American people). Reagan assaulted the free-spending Carter administration throughout his campaign in 1980. So how did the Reagan administration do? At the end of the first quarter of 1988, federal spending accounted for 28.7% of "national income."
Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%—compared with Reagan's 3%—in the government's take of "national income." And in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan's requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted.
The budget for the Department of Education, which candidate Reagan promised to abolish along with the Department of Energy, has more than doubled to $22.7 billion, Social Security spending has risen from $179 billion in 1981 to $269 billion in 1986. The price of farm programs went from $21.4 billion in 1981 to $51.4 billion in 1987, a 140% increase. And this doesn't count the recently signed $4 billion "drought-relief" measure. Medicare spending in 1981 was $43.5 billion; in 1987 it hit $80 billion. Federal entitlements cost $197.1 billion in 1981—and $477 billion in 1987.
Foreign aid has also risen, from $10 billion to $22 billion. Every year, Reagan asked for more foreign-aid money than the Congress was willing to spend. He also pushed through Congress an $8.4 billion increase in the U.S. "contribution" to the International Monetary Fund.
His budget cuts were actually cuts in projected spending, not absolute cuts in current spending levels. As Reagan put it, "We're not attempting to cut either spending or taxing levels below that which we presently have."
The result has been unprecedented government debt. Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight.[/QUOTE][url]http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/03/the-real-reagan-economic-record[/url] I remember the Carter years well we were in terrible shape gas lines 18% interest Iran hostage situation. Reagan turned this around in a heart beat and started the longest economic expansion in our history and he built the military back to the levels we needed. I remember everyone was critical of his Russian policy because he would not talk to them until he built up his military and then he could speak from a position of power and he ended the cold war. Greatest president of my life time.

[QUOTE=roadrunner;527330][URL]http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/03/the-real-reagan-economic-record[/URL] I remember the Carter years well we were in terrible shape gas lines 18% interest Iran hostage situation. Reagan turned this around in a heart beat and started the longest economic expansion in our history and he built the military back to the levels we needed. I remember everyone was critical of his Russian policy because he would not talk to them until he built up his military and then he could speak from a position of power and he ended the cold war. Greatest president of my life time.[/QUOTE]
--
And the beginning of the economical disaster we have today.