Why, the parties did.

The real change was one of priorities. Used to be that being elected to national office forced a changing of priorities. During the election the prospective legislator would be concerned with 1) the success of his party, 2) the well-being of his state or district, and 3) the well-being of the U.S.

Upon being elected those priorities would reverse. The top priority would be the well-being of the U.S., followed by the well-being of his state or district, followed by the well-being of his party.

That’s the way it was, or seemed to be, pre-Gingrich. Post Gingrich we don’t see the priority reversal on being elected. Legislators continue to be partisans foremost, putting the well-being of the U.S. as a whole last.

—W—

Corporations pay for commercials that pay for the news that we see, whether on TV or the internet, or even in the paper. Corporations want open eyeballs to see their commercials. Us-versus-them contests keep the eyeballs open. Politicians want eyeballs to see THEM, especially winning a contest. QED.

—W—

Reagan went into office with a Republican Senate (Howard Baker was majority leader for four years, Bob Dole for two; the period in which Reagan did the most damage to this country). While Tip O’Neill was Speaker of the House during the disastrous Reagan run, the House was mostly conservative. Democrats went by the seniority system in awarding committee chairmanships and Southern right-wingers (many now Republicans, if God hasn’t called them home), held most positions of power.

Calling Newt Gingrich a liar and hypocrite is a good observation.

Maybe this shows part of the problem… a widespread basic misunderstanding of the American political system.

http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/02.10/bankrupt.html

I’ve been aware of the rule and the thought of national bankruptcy has been proposed on CHB & RR for some time.

Quite possibly it could turn out to be a good thing for the citizens of the U.S. and the world in general since we are the largest of all national solvency failures on the horizon.

I’m posting a Wiki link concerning “national bankruptcy” along with a sublink concerning the survivors of such and their newly ensconced government in place repudiating “odious debt”.

*****

The politically entrenched ‘borrowers’ have committed a hostile act against the people, they cannot expect a nation which has freed itself of a despotic regime to assume these odious debts, which are the personal debts of the ruler…extract from Wiki
*****

Fascinating indeed and the concept of outright repudiation makes sense too in terms of a summary solution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_bankruptcy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odious_debt

Since we seemingly are now under the control of serial “hostile regimes” that no longer do the bidding of the people nor act to promote the general welfare or to run a sound balanced budget, then I believe his theorem will hold valid when sh*t hits the fan in two years or less. It seems more things than geological disasters are headed our way. Fatcat bankers and their running dogs in Congress, State houses etc. can easily be shuffled aside relative to their demands; ie, those that have the guns make the rules. A new ruling body would be foolish to placate bankers as opposed to appeasing a hostile, post revolutionary populace.

When the loan is made to the small borrower the bank controls the outcome, but when loans of astronomical proportions are in question the borrower controls the banker; ie., they would be grateful to be repaid in pennies on the dollar or if it all if their very lives are at stake.

Banks, bankers and the entire world paradigm of such practices are in for a rude day of reckoning when they get stiffed by their mega-borrowers; ie., nations themselves. / : |

Carl Nemo **==