Now I am confused about DU (a different answer to cali's OP)

[Savannahmann]

85. But there is the rub.

Our politicians shout it, but when elected don't do much about it except start shouting whenever they are raising money, or campaigning to get elected/reelected.

Let's look at our Party's activity. In a doomed effort to goad some Rethugs into voting for the ACA, they completely stripped out the possibility of a Public Option which would have demonstrated the affordability and desirability of that choice. Instead, they passed a law that serves to enrich the Insurance Companies, which I presume are our Corporate Masters, at the expense of the people.

When the people you are trying to reform come out and endorse your actions, that is a big worry to me. That would be like announcing that I am going to reform Pimps, and the international association of Pimps completely supports my efforts. When the Insurance Companies came out and enmasse endorsed the ACA, that should have told us that there was something wrong. The program is going to enrich them Insurance Companies, and in the end isn't going to make insurance any more affordable for the poor.

There is another lawsuit concerning the ACA working its way up the chain. An excellent chance that it will be heard by the Supreme Court this fall, or next year at the latest. In short, the law says that subsidies can be paid to people in states with the State exchanges. But subsidies are paid to people in states with the Federally managed exchange. The suit says this is a violation of the law and these subsidies are illegal. It is a poorly written law according to the linked article, which describes the lawsuit as frivolous. But the law was written this way, and it was signed by the President written this way. So it will be a debate on the intent of the law, and the letter of the law. How will the Supremes decide? Your guess is as good as mine. But even without that, the ACA is getting more expensive every year.

Rates are expected to nearly double over the next couple years. Unlike normal consumers, we are locked in to deal with a finite number of companies, all of whom are funneling our money to the 1% stockholders who grin wildly. But that's fine, because it's our corporate masters who are getting rich. Sure, they say we should tax them more, but they don't want to pay more taxes, they use every trick they denounce to avoid paying as much in taxes as possible. So our corporations are just as greedy as their corporations.

In another thread, I asked the question when a company was blasted here for relocating their headquarters to Europe to save on taxes.

So let me get this straight, the company can save money by shifting their headquarters to Great Britain, and taking advantage of the lower taxes? So Britain can take less money from their people, and business's, and still manage to provide universal health care to the masses? So what the hell are we spending our money on? Britain has roads, and manages to maintain those roads, and bridges. I haven't seen stories about bridge collapses in Britain. But here, oh we've had a few bridges collapse, but that's fine, because we have to spend the money on something else instead.

So our politicians shout that we need to improve our infrastructure. But we don't shift money from Lockheed Martin, or any of the other techno anti terrorism companies to pay for those improvements. Oh no, we have the have the latest, and greatest technological device to bomb weddings and all that.

We spend billions of dollars every year on the NSA and their various collection centers. Our Politicians either shout that we have to stop this, or we have to let it continue depending on which of the Democratic Party politicians we go with. So to support the Democratic position on this issue, because the Rethug position is pretty much just as confused. Some are for it, and some are against it.

My point is exactly this. Our politicians have to start doing instead of just shouting to get our money, and votes. They have to govern with principles, and those principles do not include raping the Eastern Seaboard to get a few buckets of oil when our usage of oil is not rising.

But the Oil Companies are now on our side, so I imagine that soon Democrats will be talking about the great safety features of the Chevrolet Suburban Subdivision. Oh we might even get the Hybrid version, which gets an astonishing five miles to the gallon instead of four.

What is the difference between George W. Bush III Jr. calling on massive increases in offshore drilling and President Obama calling for the same thing? Not one damn thing. Feathers or Lead. Both will crush you.