USA Politics Versus French Politics

Most mainstream European conservative parties are more progressive than the Democratic party in the US. In other words, the US Democratic party would be considered to be a very hard right party if it existed in Europe.

As for the US Republican party, it would be considered an extreme, far right fringe party in most if not all European countries, and the party would have no chance to gain elective office to any extent at all.

President Nicholas Sarkozy of France came into office in 2007 threatening substantial shrinkage of French society solidarity and humanitarian programs such as minimum parental childbirth leaves and overtime limits. A few relatively minor changes were enacted in his first year.

But in the wake of the economic emergency caused by the mega greed in the United States, the French President has become much more progressive. He declared in the fall of 2008 that "laissez faire" economics is now history, and he has pulled back from dismantling regulations and programs put into effect by French parties of the left.

Meanwhile, top US officials are gradually starting to proceed and talk in the same way that full scale third world officials do. They are starting to tout a US "economic recovery" that exists only for rich people.

But US middle income and lower income people can not now and will not be able to for God only knows how many years easily, or not so easily for that matter, get a job even if they are highly qualified to get one.

In many European countries but especially in France, only a comparatively small number of middle class jobs have been lost during the US economics crisis, and there are already indications that France could actually be adding to the total of their jobs later this year. Whereas it appears that, at a rock bottom minimum, it will take until mid 2010 before any net new jobs at all are added in the US, and very possibly longer than that.

[This was a response to this article.]

Boycott Companies with Obscene Pay Packages

Boycott all companies where one or more head honchos make about $500,000 or more per year, which is about $260 per "standard work hour". That's my tolerance level; you can substitute the maximum obscene salary you will put up with.

Someone needs to put up an internet site with a data bank that has the top pay package for every company that the data is available for. If someone here knows of one, could they please enlighten us?

Thom Hartmann (the radio talk show guy) made my day today with his theory as to why executives in general, and health insurance executives in particular, make tens or hundreds of millions of dollars a year instead of a measly couple of million. His theory is that since people actually, really are dying due to lack of health care in the US, it takes a psychopath to be the head of a huge health insurance corporation that sends people to premature death. The health insurance companies indirectly send people to early deaths due to their sky high prices, and they sometimes directly send someone to an early death by denying care authorization.

As Hartmann explains, only psycopaths can oversee a multi-billion dollar murderous enterprise.

Having established the premise, Hartmann then uses basic economic theory to explain that since psychopaths of the needed calibur are relatively rare, particularly ones that can function in executive settings and appear to be sane, you have to pay the very few that qualify to run a health insurance company massive sums of money.

At first I thought Hartmann’s theory was part hyperbole, but then I realized Hartmann was not in the least bit joking. Upon reflection I think it is a very strong theory indeed.

So there is a substantial chance that the head honcho of your health insurance company is actually a deranged lunatic.

A RESPONSE:

ThomasJefferson... August 14th, 2009 7:58 pm
Great post tremaine,

I submit that these murderous CEO's are not all born this way, they were made in a Frankenstien laboratory called Harvard and Yale Schools of Predatory Business where they learned the fine art of "Skull and Bones" Skullduggery (the brotherhood of death).

These are the real terrorist organizations we should destroy, not a bunch of harmless villagers on burros in Asia.

[The above conversation is in response to this article.]

Corporate Executives in Control of Obama and of the Government

It’s extra funny when Obama is incorrectly labeled a fascist or whatever, because he generally does not seem to have any strong or politically coherent beliefs at all. He certainly is not strongly in favor of the "struggling masses," but nor is he strongly in favor of entrepreneurs, or openly in favor of Corporate power. He doesn’t seem to be strongly in favor of much of anything.

The only role Mr. Obama has played so far is White House representative of the ruling corporate executives and directors. Specifically, Obama is helping to guide legislation that the Corporate executives and directors demand and want through Congress.

Currently, and especially so given Obama’s conviction poverty, the real power in the US is held by the executives and directors of huge, multi-national Corporations.

Of course, the executives and directors have held the real control over US policy since at least the 1980’s. Their takeover of US policy coincided with their amassing fortunes of tens and then hundreds of millions of dollars, with some going over the billion dollars mark, especially if stock options are counted.

Always remember that it's not the Corporations themselves that are in control, but just the executives and directors of them. The corporations themselves are just legal abstractions, and there are actually numerous kinds of people associated with them, most of whom are blameless with respect to democracy being lost.

Change to Believe in? Laugh out Loud!

Chris Hedges rocks.

It is becoming more obvious with each passing day that Obama and the Democratic party as a whole are using the delusions they planted in millions to stealthily continue the hard right wing agenda of the US / International ruling Corporations.

The "health insurance reform" (used to be health care reform) is the ultimate example. Even the lame public option is falling away now, and all that is left is the world's most regressive tax of all time. In Obama's America, the choice for lower income workers will be: "Should I help pay the multi-million dollar salary of a health insurance executive and risk homelessness, or should I maintain my anti-homelessness reserve fund, continue to not have any health insurance, and hope the IRS penalty for not helping to pay those multi-million dollar salaries is affordable?

Note that in this scheme the government is nothing more than a bill collector (enforcer in Mafia terms) for Well Point, Cigna and so forth.

Change to believe in? Laugh out Loud.

Obama Punking People Using the Limited Two Party System

Yes, Obama is punking anyone whose income is less than about $200,000 per year. And he is punking himself, too, because when all his lame policies amount to very little or nothing, he will lose in 2012, because not enough voters will be motivated to vote for him.

Flip a coin as to which needs massive reform / wholesale replacement more: the US economic system or the US political system. World experience outside of a few special cases, most notably China's "sometimes or perhaps often benevolent dictator system", has shown that a minimum of three parties are needed not only for a healthy political system, but also for a healthy economic system.