Trade deficit

You know what would help the US economy.. bring production back to the US. Can you do that simply by buying US when everything in Walmart is made in China? No, the first step is talk with your senators about completely eliminating our trade deficit. Trade deficit is a large contributer of debt aside from the entitlement programs.

A phone call is worth about 10 emails, a typed letter is worth about 1,000 phone calls, and a well crafted hand written letter has a damn good chance of being read personally by the senator.

I don’t know about everyone else, but I’m sick of China getting more than half the benefit of our tax money that was supposed to stimulate our economy. When a power plant in the US creates 200 jobs, but making the plant creates 2000 jobs in China.. that’s a huge problem.

Fact is politicians are wholly owned subsidiaries of trans-national corporations, and when these corporations base their production out of China, guess who gets our money.

Maybe I got it wrong, maybe I’m not seeing something here, but when I look at the labels on consumer goods and when I look at who pays who in Washington, those are the dots I’m connecting.. we need to become more isolationist, and to use a cliche phrase and name.. like George Washington wanted when we broke away from Europe. I think globalization has been bad for America.

To submit to you this example: Germany is very protectionist, they are isolationists. German auto manufactures buy German parts from German companies.. and that’s why they have the economic capital to bail out Greece. In the early 1900’s Japan kicked out GM from their country, and that allowed Toyota to have a monopoly in a niche market, and eventually break into a new market. They messed up recently but that’s aside from the point.

Am I missing something here?


First Amendment Rights For Corporations


I will not mince words, I am not an unbiased news reporter. I am a commentator and have started this blog due solely to this ruling. Until this ruling is derailed I will blog against all in favor of trans-national corporations ruling the American people with propaganda.

What it is: The supreme court has ruled in a 5-4 vote that corporations are people, with first amendment rights, money is free speech, and therefor can spend limitless money on political campaigns. This turns over 100 years of precedent.

Who made the votes: 5 republicans voted for the corporations, and 4 democrats voted against.

What it means: A corporation who does 5% of it’s business in America and hires maybe 1% of its workforce in America, can spend billions of dollars to coerce the political landscape more to their liking. If you think politicians were bought and paid for before, wait until the 2012 elections. Billions of dollars will be pumped behind candidates of corporations choosing. They will be puppets of their corporate masters, much like the 5 republican justices on the bench.

We are no longer living in a democracy. We are living in a democratic corporatocracy, where trans-national corporations now have a much larger voice than the people. How many of you reading this have 20 billion dollars to throw behind a candidate of your choosing? How many of you have dismissed an ad that was run one time but got an ad stuck in your head that was run hundreds of times?

That is the difference money can make. Corporations can essentially brainwash people to think the way they think, buy their product, or promote their cause. This is why corporations pay millions to get air time during the super bowl. Now imagine if those time slots could be filled with ads promoting corporations hand picked political candidates. Who has the larger voice? Our voice will be very small.

What is being done by the republican media and far rights such as Rush Limbaugh? They are praising this because now the corporations finally have free speech. But WHY do they need free speech? They really don’t say. Why do they think a corporation is a person? Well they don’t really say that either. They denounce democrats being in the pocket of special interests for health care, but then why would they vote for even more special interests to become involved and unanimously praise it when they do? They do because they know republicans are the corporations party of choice and will be backed by them, and TRANS-NATIONAL corporations have more than fifty times the spending power of the AMERICAN unions they speak so negatively of.

What can be done about it: Congress could word legislation extremely carefully so it cannot be misinterpreted by the supreme court, so their ruling is reigned in somewhat. Simply put the word “natural” in front of “person” in the first amendment.

The model for the corporation back at the time of the framing of the Constitution was a municipality, strictly for the benefit of the people so understandably putting an adjective before the word person would have seemed ridiculous in their time!

Perhaps this will give the republicans a political backlash in 2012, and hopefully show them that money cannot buy elections. But for the informed of us, we know that elections are often bought, and this could happen if we do not pro-actively attack this with ferocity.

How it happened: Sandra Day was replaced by Alito.. George W. Bush’s appointment. That’s all it takes, one president to appoint one justice and to use a cliche term.. tip the scale.

How long will this ruling last? Until democrats retake the supreme court most likely, because no matter how legislation is passed, the supreme court can rule however they want and take on any, all, or no litigation cases they want without discretion. There is no check or balance to them, and this is exactly what Thomas Jefferson feared more than anything during the framing of the constitution. His nightmare came true. And now and the risk of sounding like Don Quixote with illusions of grandeur, it is time for we the people, to retake our country, of the people, by the people, for the people. And we must do it one election at a time, or feel the grip trans-national corporations have on America tighten.

What might be a long term result? Campaign finance reform might arise out of this, if eyes are opened, and law can be passed that will force all potential politicians to operate under equal financial conditions and level out the playing field so the people can vote for a candidates positions instead of how many positive or negative images of them they have been bombarded with.