Some Republican candidates have shown little mercy for very sick people and for homeowners who face foreclosure. If they can't pay, let nature, i.e. the free capitalistic and cruel market take its course. The Michigan native, Mr. Romney, even condemned the bailout of GM and Chrysler, saying that if they failed and if thousands lost their jobs, that was the way it had to be. Too bad, added Mr. Huntsman, a man I expected to show some compassion for the unemployed. When faced with the question of what to do with banks that are "too big to fail", none of the contenders was able to offer a solution in last night's debate. In summary, everyone, even the bumbling Rick Perry, recommended a return to the heartless days of savage capitalism, probably because they all receive a lot of financial support from big business. The real winner was without a doubt Newton Gingrich who had the temerity of scolding one of the moderators, Bartiromo, for giving him 30 seconds for a topic that would require several hours, health care.
The real problem among the candidates is that they seem to be out of touch with the feelings of the population at large. The majority of Americans strongly believe that the rich are getting a free pass when it comes to paying their fair share of taxes. Outrageous bonuses to CEO's of failing (bailed out) companies compound the ire of the middle class which occupies Wall Street. Ms. Bachman ceaselessly rewinds the tape (she clearly memorized the spiel) of wishing they would go and manifest in front of the White House. Romney coldly tells people who have "underwater" mortgages to keep faith in the capitalist system, just as Marie-Antoinette regally enjoined hungry Frenchmen to eat cake instead of bread. Ron Paul and his supporters would let very sick and uninsured people die of their disease. Their ideal government would consist of a few employees collecting taxes and distributing the funds to the States. What United States?
Apparently a few very large companies are responsible for 90% of the country's GDP. However, they don't pay 90% of the taxes as they have scores of lobbyists who "convince" key lawmakers to introduce a few more loopholes in the tax system. Just look at insurance companies, drug manufacturers, financial companies, and farmers; they all have either subsidies or tax exemptions or outright donations from the Federal Government and they make obscene amounts of profits as they exert a virtual monopoly on their respective market. Did any candidates even suggest closing the loopholes in the tax code? Yes, they did, but with great cunning, they offered to compensate by lowering the capital gains rate 10%. The bottom line is going to be even better for these huge conglomerates. And Joe Smith, or Jane Doe, who make a living with great difficulty in the middle class, who represents them in Washington? What influential lobby defends the middle-class? Oh, that's right, that's why we elected our Congressmen and women, to defend and protect our interests (place sarcasm here!)
That's the key point; money has taken over the political representation. The power resides not in the hands of the people, as the Founding Fathers had desired, but in the greedy palms of thousands of speculators, large companies and politicians.
The OWS movement wants that, precisely: A major change in the way we do politics and stop enacting laws that favor the few and crush the many. That will require the elimination of lobbies, gasp! What happened to the first amendment? (place irony here).
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
All men, or just a few?