This is awesome. Everyone needs to visit this website and vote. Be sure to watch the video, too. Great Job and Kudos to Eric Cantor. I’m glad someone has some sense in Washington !
This is awesome. Everyone needs to visit this website and vote. Be sure to watch the video, too. Great Job and Kudos to Eric Cantor. I’m glad someone has some sense in Washington !
Welfare and social programs today are rampant with abuse. We need true welfare reform that requires stricter guidelines so people cannot make it a career.
If you are on welfare for longer than 12 months, you should undergo sterilization so that you cannot reproduce just to get more money. All welfare recipients should undergo drug testing and if tested positive, removed from the welfare rolls. Government workers need to be held accountable and actually enforce the rules and actively follow up with home visits to see who is actually living in the home and who is allowed to be there. The home visits should also be required for all people receiving HUD or rental assistance from the government and every visit should be unannounced. Medicaid recipients, especially those on welfare should be required to pay co-pays the same as working class people that have insurance. If our seniors are required to pay co-pays on their medicare, then medicaid recipients should have to as well, especially in the case of ems abuse. It is ridiculous that people are allowed to stay on the welfare rolls for years and years getting more money for breeding more children. Even with the so-called reform under Clinton, there is more incentive for these people to stay on welfare than there is to get off of welfare and it should be the other way around. Every welfare recipient should be required to perform community service, cleaning, painting, mowing, picking up trash, etc to actually earn this free money from the government and those with children already have government monies for child care when needed so that is not a problem. As a working class person, I get tired of seeing people on welfare wearing better clothes, driving better cars, better cell phones, big screen televisions, more food with better cuts of meat and overall living better than I do at the expense of me and every other working, taxpaying person in this country.
Immigration needs to be dealt with by securing our borders, sending back ALL illegals, including the ones in prisons and requiring everyone to go through the legal steps of becoming a citizen.
The illegals in this country cost us billions every year and take away jobs from our citizens. It is said that these are jobs nobody else will do but how do we know, especially with unemployment near ten percent. Send the illegals back to where they came from whether Mexican, Middle Eastern, Asian, European or whatever. It is a slap in the face to every person that came to our country legally and became a citizen. It is a further slap in the face for these illegals to fly their country’s flag in place of our flag. This is like spitting in our face. The illegals here that protest and march think that WE owe them and we do not. I applaud Arizona and their new law. If our federal government refuses to enforce the current laws then local governments need something to keep crime down in our communities. We do not need a half baked immigration reform law like we got with the so-called health care reform either. We need something that will help save our country billions of dollars annually and keep track of who comes and goes in our country, especially after 9/11.
Congressman Mollohan from West Virginia was ousted in the primary election Tuesday, May 11, 2010.
The rest of the country needs to follow West Virginia’s lead and Vote out ALL INCUMBENTS. This is the only way to get rid of the status quo in Washington. This isn’t a matter of voting out the Dems but voting out the incumbents. It is time for change in Washington and the only way to achieve that is to get rid of those that have been in there for years. Both parties are responsible for the mess our country is in and the so-called health care reform was just the icing on the cake. Term limits have been proposed in almost every new congress and is swept aside by the incumbents never seeing the floor for a vote. If the voters keep the same old cronies from both parties in office then there will never be real change in Washington. It is time “We, the people” took back our government from special interests, lobbyists,corporation and bankers. Follow WV’s lead and get rid of the incumbents.
The incumbents from both parties must go and the voters and taxpayers in this country need to demand fiscal restraint. Our borrowing and deficit is out of control. Portugal and Spain recently had their ratings dropped after the Greece financial crisis. Greece has a deficit vs. GDP of 118 percent. Portugal’s debt is 86 percent of their GDP and they were downgraded. By the end of this year, the United States debt will be 92.6 percent of the GDP. What does this say for the US? We have yet to be downgraded because it would put the entire globe into economic crisis. The United States is close to bankruptcy and our government keeps on spending and borrowing. Bailout after bailout at taxpayer expense with the latest being Fannie Mae, who is seeking another $8.4 Billion in aid. The housing crisis has continued even with the bank bailouts and the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailouts. The banks are still foreclosing at record pace and the bailouts aimed at homeowners keeping their homes are not working. These agencies are keeping the money and investing it to make more money for themselves while the homeowners are kicked out. It seems that Washington thinks bailouts are the norm now. There are small businesses closing every day and they don’t receive help from the government so why should the bigger companies/corporations?
Government has to be held accountable and one way to succeed at this is to get rid of the incumbents. We need term limits today more than ever before. Every year, term limits are brought up by a newly elected member to Congress and each time the incumbents sweep it aside keeping it from reaching the floor for a vote. The incumbents do not want the new members in Congress to change the status quo. They enjoy the high life they are living with all of the perks at the expense of the taxpayer. Nothing will change until we get these incumbents from both parties out of office so that other members elected will realize that the people are now holding them accountable.
I for one am mad as hell at the political shenanigans of both parties. They do not seem to care what the people think or want. They do not seem to care about our country and the current shape it is in. They only seem to care about blaming each party, fighting with each party and having back room closed door meetings to ram through so-called reforms so they can give each other attaboys and pats on the back. It is time both parties work together and do what is best for the country or our country will be the next Greece and we will fall like Rome.
It amazes me that even with e-mails, Goldman-Sachs denies any wrong doing. I think they should be held accountable.
It also appears that Congress apparently is just going through the motions for the public and really cares little about how the crisis has affected everyone in a negative way while companies like Goldman and other may have been raking in billions at our expense. Greed is rampant in Washington and Wall Street.
Take for example just one congressman, Alan Mollohan. He became a multi-millionaire during his congressional tenure and ethics investigations turned up nothing and was dismissed. It makes one wonder if this was brushed aside in exchange for his YES vote on the health care bill.
Of course, with all of the Wall Street lobbyists, I’m sure our “leaders” will offer up a do nothing reform that will expand government while doing basically nothing other than allowing more government employees surf the net for porn.
Our government is in a sad state and it appears it continues to decline and it is “we the people” who are paying for it in many ways.
It will be interesting to see what unfolds with the entire financial situation in our country and how Greece and other European countries nearing financial collapse will affect us.
Below are the articles regarding Goldman.
Not us: Goldman execs deny wrongdoing in crisis
Marcy Gordon and Tom Raum, Associated Press Writers, On Tuesday April 27, 2010, 9:42 pm EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) — Defending his company under blistering criticism, the CEO of Goldman Sachs testily told skeptical senators Tuesday that customers who bought securities from the Wall Street giant in the run-up to a national financial crisis came looking for risk “and that’s what they got.”
Lloyd Blankfein and other Goldman executives were lambasted by lawmakers for “unbridled greed” in an often-electric daylong showdown between Wall Street and Congress — with expletives frequently undeleted. Unrepentant, five present and two past Goldman officials unflinchingly stood by their conduct before a Senate investigatory panel and denied helping to cause the financial near-meltdown that turned into the worst recession since the Great Depression.
“Unfortunately, the housing market went south very quickly,” Blankfein told skeptical senators. “So people lost money in it.”
Democrats hoped the hearing would build momentum for legislation, now before the Senate, to increase regulation of the nation’s financial system. That legislation would crack down on the kind of lightly regulated housing market investments that helped set off the crisis in 2007.
Elsewhere at the Capitol, Republicans succeeded for a second day in blocking efforts to move toward debate and a vote on that bill. At the same time, they floated a partial alternative that they said could lead to election-year compromise on an issue that commands strong public support.
Both sides are trying to harness voter anger toward Wall Street. Unlike with the health care debate, both Democrats and Republicans say they want tighter regulations passed — but they disagree on timing and significant details.
At the hearing, there was hour upon hour — nearly 11 hours in all, winding up just before 9 p.m. EDT — of combative exchanges, occasional humor and long stretches of senators and Wall Street insiders speaking past each other. There was talk of ethical obligations versus financial transactions so complex they all but defy explanation. And there were a half dozen protesters dressed head to toe in prison stripes with Goldman officials’ names around their necks.
Senators from both parties verbally pounded the Goldman executives, accusing them of a financial version of rigged casino gambling that they said endangered the entire U.S. economy.
That drew a protest from Sen. John Ensign, a Nevada Republican. In Las Vegas, he said, “people know the odds are against them. They play anyway. On Wall Street, they manipulate the odds while you’re playing the game.”
Outside the hearing room, analysts and investors suggested the firm was surviving the hearing with its reputation intact, something its stock performance for the day may have underscored. Goldman’s stock rose $1.01 per share, to $153.04, on Tuesday, a day in which the Dow Jones industrials had their worst drop in nearly three months, down 213 points.
Blankfein was the final witness in a daylong hearing on Goldman conduct that resulted in a Securities and Exchange Commission civil fraud charge earlier this month against the firm and one of its traders.
Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the panel’s chairman cited a “fundamental conflict” in Goldman’s selling to clients home-loan securities that company e-mails showed its own employees had derided as “junk” and “crap” — and then betting against the same securities and not telling the buyers.
“They’re buying something from you, and you are betting against it. And you want people to trust you. I wouldn’t trust you,” Levin told Blankfein.
Blankfein denied such a conflict in a combative exchange. “We do hundreds of thousands, if not millions of transactions a day, as a market maker,” he said, noting that behind every transaction there was a buyer and a seller, creating both winners and losers.
Levin vigorously pressed about an e-mail between Goldman executives describing one product called Timberwolf as “one s—-y deal.”
“Your top priority is to sell that s—-y deal,” Levin said. “Should Goldman Sachs be trying to sell a s—-y deal?”
I didn’t use that term, the executive responded.
Other senators repeated the language in their questioning.
Goldman’s chief said the company didn’t bet against its clients — and can’t survive without their trust. He repeated the company’s assertion that it lost $1.2 billion in the residential mortgage meltdown in 2007 and 2008 that touched off the financial crisis and a severe recession. He also argued that Goldman wasn’t making an aggressive negative bet — or short — on the mortgage market’s slide.
He and other officials described their use of complex trading tools as a way to reduce risks for the company and its clients.
Earlier, Levin said that financial industry lobbyists “fill the halls of Congress, hoping to weaken or kill legislation” to increase regulation. He accused Wall Street firms of selling securities they wouldn’t invest in themselves. That’s “unbridled greed in the absence of the cop on the beat to control it,” he said.
Whether Tuesday’s hearing would help Democrats win Republican converts on the legislation remained an open question. “It’s too soon to tell,” Levin said in a brief interview outside the hearing. “We’ll have to wait until the dust settles.”
The Goldman witnesses strongly denied that the firm intentionally cashed in on the housing crash by crafting a strategy to bet against home loan securities while misleading its own investors.
“I will defend myself in court against this false claim,” said Fabrice Tourre, a French-born 31-year-old Goldman trader who was the only individual named in the SEC suit. “I deny — categorically — the SEC’s allegation.”
The SEC says Tourre marketed securities without telling buyers they had been chosen with help from a Goldman hedge fund client that was betting the investments would fail. The commission alleged that Tourre told investors the hedge fund, Paulson & Co., actually bought into the investments. Tourre said he didn’t recall telling investors that.
Tourre said: “I am saddened and humbled by what happened in the market in 2007 and 2008. … But I believe my conduct was proper.”
Was Goldman harmed by the hearing?
“Despite the interrogation, the Goldman team hasn’t really provided any new information,” market analyst Edward Yardeni said. “And the (senators) aren’t creating a more damaging view than already existed.”
“Right now, it looks like the PR battle has been fought to a draw,” Yardeni added.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said that while there may not be proof that Goldman did anything illegal, “there’s no doubt their behavior was unethical and the people will render a judgment as well as courts.”
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said the blame doesn’t fall on Goldman alone. “There’s numerous causes to the financial crisis, not just one.” He said the blame must be shared by federal regulatory agencies who didn’t use the powers they already have and by Congress. “In truth, we all took turns in inflating the housing bubble,” he said.
Associated Press writers Stevenson Jacobs in New York and Jim Kuhnhenn and Michael Sandler in Washington contributed to this report.
Goldman Sachs Messages Show It Thrived as Economy Fell
By LOUISE STORY, SEWELL CHAN and GRETCHEN MORGENSON
Published: April 24, 2010
In late 2007 as the mortgage crisis gained momentum and many banks were suffering losses, Goldman Sachs executives traded e-mail messages saying that they were making “some serious money” betting against the housing markets.
The e-mails, released Saturday morning by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, appear to contradict some of Goldman’s previous statements that left the impression that the firm lost money on mortgage-related investments.
In the e-mails, Lloyd C. Blankfein, the bank’s chief executive, acknowledged in November of 2007 that the firm indeed had lost money initially. But it later recovered from those losses by making negative bets, known as short positions, enabling it to profit as housing prices fell and homeowners defaulted on their mortgages. “Of course we didn’t dodge the mortgage mess,” he wrote. “We lost money, then made more than we lost because of shorts.”
In another message, dated July 25, 2007, David A. Viniar, Goldman’s chief financial officer, remarked on figures that showed the company had made a $51 million profit in a single day from bets that the value of mortgage-related securities would drop. “Tells you what might be happening to people who don’t have the big short,” he wrote to Gary D. Cohn, now Goldman’s president.
The messages were released Saturday ahead of a Congressional hearing on Tuesday in which seven current and former Goldman employees, including Mr. Blankfein, are expected to testify. The hearing follows a recent securities fraud complaint that the Securities and Exchange Commission filed against Goldman and one of its employees, Fabrice Tourre, who will also testify on Tuesday.
Actions taken by Wall Street firms during the housing meltdown have become a major factor in the contentious debate over financial reform. The first test of the administration’s overhaul effort will come Monday when the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, is to call a procedural vote to try to stop a Republican filibuster.
Republicans have contended that the renewed focus on Goldman stems from Democrats’ desire to use anger at Wall Street to push through a financial reform bill.
Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan and head of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, said that the e-mail messages contrast with Goldman’s public statements about its trading results. “The 2009 Goldman Sachs annual report stated that the firm ‘did not generate enormous net revenues by betting against residential related products,’ ” Mr. Levin said in a statement Saturday when his office released the documents. “These e-mails show that, in fact, Goldman made a lot of money by betting against the mortgage market.”
A Goldman spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The Goldman messages connect some of the dots at a crucial moment of Goldman history. They show that in 2007, as most other banks hemorrhaged losses from plummeting mortgage holdings, Goldman prospered.
At first, Goldman openly discussed its prescience in calling the housing downfall. In the third quarter of 2007, the investment bank reported publicly that it had made big profits on its negative bet on mortgages.
But by the end of that year, the firm curtailed disclosures about its mortgage trading results. Its chief financial officer told analysts at the end of 2007 that they should not expect Goldman to reveal whether it was long or short on the housing market. By late 2008, Goldman was emphasizing its losses, rather than its profits, pointing regularly to write-downs of $1.7 billion on mortgage assets and leaving out the amount it made on its negative bets.
Goldman and other firms often take positions on both sides of an investment. Some are long, which are bets that the investment will do well, and some are shorts, which are bets the investment will do poorly. If an investor’s positions are balanced — or hedged, in industry parlance — then the combination of the longs and shorts comes out to zero.
Goldman has said that it added shorts to balance its mortgage book, not to make a directional bet that the market would collapse. But the messages released Saturday appear to show that in 2007, at least, Goldman’s short bets were eclipsing the losses on its long positions. In May 2007, for instance, Goldman workers e-mailed one another about losses on a bundle of mortgages issued by Long Beach Mortgage Securities. Though the firm lost money on those, a worker wrote, there was “good news”: “we own 10 mm in protection.” That meant Goldman had enough of a bet against the bond that, over all, it profited by $5 million.
Documents released by the Senate committee appear to indicate that in July 2007, Goldman’s daily accounting showed losses of $322 million on positive mortgage positions, but its negative bet — what Mr. Viniar called “the big short” — came in $51 million higher.
As recently as a week ago, a Goldman spokesman emphasized that the firm had tried only to hedge its mortgage holdings in 2007 and said the firm had not been net short in that market.
The firm said in its annual report this month that it did not know back then where housing was headed, a sentiment expressed by Mr. Blankfein the last time he appeared before Congress.
“We did not know at any minute what would happen next, even though there was a lot of writing,” he told the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission in January.
It is not known how much money in total Goldman made on its negative housing bets. Only a handful of e-mail messages were released Saturday, and they do not reflect the complete record.
The Senate subcommittee began its investigation in November 2008, but its work attracted little attention until a series of hearings in the last month. The first focused on lending practices at Washington Mutual, which collapsed in 2008, the largest bank failure in American history; another scrutinized deficiencies at several regulatory agencies, including the Office of Thrift Supervision and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
A third hearing, on Friday, centered on the role that the credit rating agencies — Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s and Fitch — played in the financial crisis. At the end of the hearing, Mr. Levin offered a preview of the Goldman hearing scheduled for Tuesday.
“Our investigation has found that investment banks such as Goldman Sachs were not market makers helping clients,” Mr. Levin said, referring to testimony given by Mr. Blankfein in January. “They were self-interested promoters of risky and complicated financial schemes that were a major part of the 2008 crisis. They bundled toxic and dubious mortgages into complex financial instruments, got the credit-rating agencies to label them as AAA safe securities, sold them to investors, magnifying and spreading risk throughout the financial system, and all too often betting against the financial instruments that they sold, and profiting at the expense of their clients.”
The transaction at the center of the S.E.C.’s case against Goldman also came up at the hearings on Friday, when Mr. Levin discussed it with Eric Kolchinsky, a former managing director at Moody’s. The mortgage-related security was known as Abacus 2007-AC1, and while it was created by Goldman, the S.E.C. contends that the firm misled investors by not disclosing that it had allowed a hedge fund manager, John A. Paulson, to select mortgage bonds for the portfolio that would be most likely to fail. That charge is at the core of the civil suit it filed against Goldman.
Moody’s was hired by Goldman to rate the Abacus security. Mr. Levin asked Mr. Kolchinsky, who for most of 2007 oversaw the ratings of collateralized debt obligations backed by subprime mortgages, if he had known of Mr. Paulson’s involvement in the Abacus deal.
“I did not know, and I suspect — I’m fairly sure that my staff did not know either,” Mr. Kolchinsky said.
Mr. Levin asked whether details of Mr. Paulson’s involvement were “facts that you or your staff would have wanted to know before rating Abacus.” Mr. Kolchinsky replied: “Yes, that’s something that I would have personally wanted to know.”
Mr. Kolchinsky added: “It just changes the whole dynamic of the structure, where the person who’s putting it together, choosing it, wants it to blow up.”
The Senate announced that it would convene a hearing on Goldman Sachs within a week of the S.E.C.’s fraud suit. Some members of Congress questioned whether the two investigations had been coordinated or linked.
Mr. Levin’s staff said there was no connection between the two investigations. They pointed out that the subcommittee requested the appearance of the Goldman executives and employees well before the S.E.C. filed its case.
This is not surprising at all. Health care costs will rise under Obamacare at the expense of taxpayers. It appears it will screw seniors as well with the medicare cuts to pay for medicaid. What a joke. This is definitely not reform, just expanded medicaid and more government spending. Economists said from the get go that they used fuzzy math to supposedly pay for this bill/law. It is now evident that it is going to cost every taxpayer more money and everyone that has an insurance plan more money. It is evident, too, that it actually does nothing to address the rise in health care costs as the below article reveals. Just another way to screw the working class. We need TRUE reform, not this poor attempt by the democrats. Repeal it and start over and address the problems that need addressed.
Report says health care will cover more, cost more
AP By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer – Fri Apr 23, 5:58 am ET
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul law is getting a mixed verdict in the first comprehensive look by neutral experts: More Americans will be covered, but costs are also going up.
Economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department concluded in a report issued Thursday that the health care remake will achieve Obama’s aim of expanding health insurance — adding 34 million to the coverage rolls.
But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president’s twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, the report warned.
It’s a worrisome assessment for Democrats.
In particular, concerns about Medicare could become a major political liability in the midterm elections. The report projected that Medicare cuts could drive about 15 percent of hospitals and other institutional providers into the red, “possibly jeopardizing access” to care for seniors.
The report from Medicare’s Office of the Actuary carried a disclaimer saying it does not represent the official position of the Obama administration. White House officials have repeatedly complained that such analyses have been too pessimistic and lowball the law’s potential to achieve savings.
The report acknowledged that some of the cost-control measures in the bill — Medicare cuts, a tax on high-cost insurance and a commission to seek ongoing Medicare savings — could help reduce the rate of cost increases beyond 2020. But it held out little hope for progress in the first decade.
“During 2010-2019, however, these effects would be outweighed by the increased costs associated with the expansions of health insurance coverage,” wrote Richard S. Foster, Medicare’s chief actuary. “Also, the longer-term viability of the Medicare … reductions is doubtful.” Foster’s office is responsible for long-range costs estimates.
Republicans said the findings validate their concerns about Obama’s 10-year, nearly $1 trillion plan to remake the nation’s health care system.
“A trillion dollars gets spent, and it’s no surprise — health care costs are going to go up,” said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., a leading Republican on health care issues. Camp added that he’s concerned the Medicare cuts will undermine care for seniors.
In a statement, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sought to highlight some positive findings for seniors. For example, the report concluded that Medicare monthly premiums would be lower than otherwise expected, due to the spending reductions.
“The Affordable Care Act will improve the health care system for all Americans, and we will continue our work to quickly and carefully implement the new law,” the statement said.
Passed by a divided Congress after a year of bitter partisan debate, the law would create new health insurance markets for individuals and small businesses. Starting in 2014, most Americans would be required to carry health insurance except in cases of financial hardship. Tax credits would help many middle-class households pay their premiums, while Medicaid would pick up more low-income people. Insurers would be required to accept all applicants, regardless of their health.
The U.S. spends $2.5 trillion a year on health care, far more per person than any other developed nation, and for results that aren’t clearly better when compared to more frugal countries. At the outset of the health care debate last year, Obama held out the hope that by bending the cost curve down, the U.S. could cover all its citizens for about what the nation would spend absent any changes.
The report found that the president’s law missed the mark, although not by much. The overhaul will increase national health care spending by $311 billion from 2010-2019, or nine-tenths of 1 percent. To put that in perspective, total health care spending during the decade is estimated to surpass $35 trillion.
Administration officials argue the increase is a bargain price for guaranteeing coverage to 95 percent of Americans. They also point out that the law will decrease the federal deficit by $143 billion over the 10-year period.
The report’s most sober assessments concerned Medicare.
In addition to flagging provider cuts as potentially unsustainable, the report projected that reductions in payments to private Medicare Advantage plans would trigger an exodus from the popular alternative. Enrollment would plummet by about 50 percent. Seniors leaving the private plans would still have health insurance under traditional Medicare, but many might face higher out-of-pocket costs.
In another flashing yellow light, the report warned that a new voluntary long-term care insurance program created under the law faces “a very serious risk” of insolvency.
I used to have trust in my government about 12 years or so ago, not a lot, but some. It seems however that politicians are just greedy, care little about the country and the people and are just in it to make money and get great health care and retirement at taxpayer expense.
It seems that our leaders and the corporate wall street banker types have let greed win over, especially during the last 12 years, while lining their pockets with millions yearly at the expense of the rest of us.
Both parties are to blame. Both parties have allowed it to happen and have even participated in it. The American people need to wake up before the fall of the United States occurs. There should be term limits but congress continues to ignore the bills that come before them regarding term limits while they continue to spend millions of taxpayer monies each election to mail out letters, flyers, etc. telling us what they have done for the past few years making us think they are above reproach and then spending millions of campaign money for ads that distort the truth of everything they have had a hand in, spin everything they voted on so that it sounds like they are the best thing since sliced bread.
It is time “We, the people” take back our government and vote out every incumbent, regardless of party, and put some new blood in our government. It is time we held congress and the White House accountable. It is obvious that the leaders in office now are unable to solve the problems of our nation.
They tell us they will reform campaign finance, lobbyists, social security, health care, welfare, spending, taxes, etc. but they never do. They pass legislation that continues profits for big business at the expense of the taxpayers, legislation that burdens the states ever more and causing tax increases for all. The “reform” they do pass is not reform at all but more spending and does nothing to address the root causes of the problems we face. Throwing money at problems and expanding government is not the answer. The health care reform is not reform, it is more government spending. The welfare reform under President Clinton was not reform, there are still too many people on the welfare rolls that make welfare a career.
Our leaders are spending like never before without reforming anything. I for one am tired of both parties. I am tired of partisan politics. I want leaders that throw the party aside and work for the good of the country, coming to a compromise that will benefit the majority and not a select few.
I believe the only way we can accomplish that is to vote out the incumbents and start fresh, a rebirth of our nation of sorts.
It is time for political reform with the people speaking this time, not the lobbyists, the bankers, the corporations or the politicians. Vote out all incumbents from both parties.
Below is an article that shows the American people are sick and tired of politicians in Washington. We need to make a stand and that is to vote out your representative because they are part of the problem. Do your part, register to vote and VOTE them out!
Poll: 4 out of 5 Americans don’t trust Washington
By LIZ SIDOTI, AP National Political Writer Liz Sidoti, Ap National Political Writer – Mon Apr 19, 6:29 am ET
WASHINGTON – America’s “Great Compromiser” Henry Clay called government “the great trust,” but most Americans today have little faith in Washington’s ability to deal with the nation’s problems.
Public confidence in government is at one of the lowest points in a half century, according to a survey from the Pew Research Center. Nearly 8 in 10 Americans say they don’t trust the federal government and have little faith it can solve America’s ills, the survey found.
The survey illustrates the ominous situation President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party face as they struggle to maintain their comfortable congressional majorities in this fall’s elections. Midterm prospects are typically tough for the party in power. Add a toxic environment like this and lots of incumbent Democrats could be out of work.
The survey found that just 22 percent of those questioned say they can trust Washington almost always or most of the time and just 19 percent say they are basically content with it. Nearly half say the government negatively effects their daily lives, a sentiment that’s grown over the past dozen years.
This anti-government feeling has driven the tea party movement, reflected in fierce protests this past week.
“The government’s been lying to people for years. Politicians make promises to get elected, and when they get elected, they don’t follow through,” says Cindy Wanto, 57, a registered Democrat from Nemacolin, Pa., who joined several thousand for a rally in Washington on April 15 — the tax filing deadline. “There’s too much government in my business. It was a problem before Obama, but he’s certainly not helping fix it.”
Majorities in the survey call Washington too big and too powerful, and say it’s interfering too much in state and local matters. The public is split over whether the government should be responsible for dealing with critical problems or scaled back to reduce its power, presumably in favor of personal responsibility.
About half say they want a smaller government with fewer services, compared with roughly 40 percent who want a bigger government providing more. The public was evenly divided on those questions long before Obama was elected. Still, a majority supported the Obama administration exerting greater control over the economy during the recession.
“Trust in government rarely gets this low,” said Andrew Kohut, director of the nonpartisan center that conducted the survey. “Some of it’s backlash against Obama. But there are a lot of other things going on.”
And, he added: “Politics has poisoned the well.”
The survey found that Obama’s policies were partly to blame for a rise in distrustful, anti-government views. In his first year in office, the president orchestrated a government takeover of Detroit automakers, secured a $787 billion stimulus package and pushed to overhaul the health care system.
But the poll also identified a combination of factors that contributed to the electorate’s hostility: the recession that Obama inherited from President George W. Bush; a dispirited public; and anger with Congress and politicians of all political leanings.
“I want an honest government. This isn’t an honest government. It hasn’t been for some time,” said self-described independent David Willms, 54, of Sarasota, Fla. He faulted the White House and Congress under both parties.
The poll was based on four surveys done from March 11 to April 11 on landline and cell phones. The largest survey, of 2,500 adults, has a margin of sampling error of 2.5 percentage points; the others, of about 1,000 adults each, has a margin of sampling error of 4 percentage points.
In the short term, the deepening distrust is politically troubling for Obama and Democrats. Analysts say out-of-power Republicans could well benefit from the bitterness toward Washington come November, even though voters blame them, too, for partisan gridlock that hinders progress.
In a democracy built on the notion that citizens have a voice and a right to exercise it, the long-term consequences could prove to be simply unhealthy — or truly debilitating. Distrust could lead people to refuse to vote or get involved in their own communities. Apathy could set in, or worse — violence.
Democrats and Republicans both accept responsibility and fault the other party for the electorate’s lack of confidence.
“This should be a wake-up call. Both sides are guilty,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. She pointed to “nonsense” that goes on during campaigns that leads to “promises made but not promises kept.” Still, she added: “Distrust of government is an all-American activity. It’s something we do as Americans and there’s nothing wrong with it.”
Sen. Scott Brown, a Republican who won a long-held Democratic Senate seat in Massachusetts in January by seizing on public antagonism toward Washington, said: “It’s clear Washington is broken. There’s too much partisan bickering to be able to solve the problems people want us to solve.”
And, he added: “It’s going to be reflected in the elections this fall.”
But Matthew Dowd, a top strategist on Bush’s re-election campaign who now shuns the GOP label, says both Republicans and Democrats are missing the mark.
“What the country wants is a community solution to the problems but not necessarily a federal government solution,” Dowd said. Democrats are emphasizing the federal government, while Republicans are saying it’s about the individual; neither is emphasizing the right combination to satisfy Americans, he said.
On the Net:
Pew Research Center: http://people-press.org/