Does anyone remember how America war formed? The English government, heretofore referred to as "the government", was taxing the citizens but not representing them. The government was taking money from the populace and looking out only for the rich and powerful. If you cannot see the parallel between then and now, you are excused from this dialogue, having already identified yourself as an extremist, an evangelical, and Republican.
There is no insult in the foregoibng. Proof that it's not an insult
Who do I love? Republicans who do not earn more $2500 per week.
We can start by looking at the definitions of two words: Republican and Democratic.
The Republican platform for the past one hundred and forty years is to reduce the interference of government,
encourage personal achievement over excessive government handouts. That doesn't mean NO social programs, simply a reduction of the general ability of the government to interfere with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The Democratic position is one that requires redistribution of wealth, with a portion of every citizen's income
Now that we no longer have two or three major parties in America
The best way to hold national elections is for the individual to personally remove a label for themselves.
It is so simple to solve this national crisis of politics.
The government actually passed a law that says Medicare is not allowed to negotiate the price of drugs.
The drug companies state that allowing seniors to have discounts will stifle research. There are two intelligent responses to this, desirable to thsoe who think more with logic than with emotion. What's so exciting and encouraging is that it applies exactly and equally to charity organizations in America.
Whether it's the American Cancer Society, which spends approximately ninety-one cents of each donated dollar on salaries, bonuses, cell phones, executive perks, and other so-called "administrative" costs, or the American Red Cross, which sought to spend seven million dollars from the 911day fund that American and foreign citizens contributed to on a fancy new telephone system, the trend is clear: charities have become a business.
If this must be so, and it doesn't look as if it'll change any time soon, then we have to use the inner road of logic combined with the higher road of good ethics.
The two parallel industries of prescription drugs and charity fund-raising are both necessary to successful societies.
What's gone wrong is that the ethics have been removed from both of these businesses, the concept of service almost but not-quite obviated. That's actually the good news, because as long as there is still some element of service, then we can begin attracting better people.
Any fair examination of the largest two hundred charities in America show that the top executive positions in those organizations are rarely ever men and women with reputations for integrity and honesty. In seventy-one cases, we see CEO's and Chairmen who've been involved with and/or convicted in either criminal or civil wrongdoing, and in twenty-two cases BOTH criminal and civil wrongdoing.
Even stockholders in the pharmaceutical companies would hardly deny the growing realization that the actual owners of the world's four major pharmaceutical companies are both keenly aware of the fact that they have a monopoloy, and greedy without any limits we've able to measure thus far. To make such excessive profits directly from human suffering, to drain a national economy even worse than Haliburton, which took six thousand millions and still defrauded the soliders and taxpayers for seven hundred additional and utterly fraudulent dollars, says a great deal not only about those who profit unreasonably from human suffering, it also says a great deal about a populace that is not happy merely tolerating it; instead choosing to actively support such policies and practicves.
So here we have two critical functions of society which we cannot do without. To grant both of them unlimited license to take advantage is precisely the same as granting license to ticket scalpers charging hugely inflated prices for the same product or service that can be purchased elsewhere for less with no difference in quality or quantity of service or product received.
Because charity assistance and pharmaceuticals are so important to society, there are three primary approaches that will fix the problem. First, legislation. Because there are only sixteen Democrats, Republicans, and Independents in of four hundred and thirty-five representatives who are demonstrably honest, because there are currently only three U.S. Senators who are demonstrably honest people, only an idiot would expect to get relief from legislation. That's not going to happen anytime soon unless those we call "bad guys" do us the huge service of erasing Congress and empowering the citizens of America to start again with real citizens running for office instead of self-aggrandizing bloviators.
Secondly, Americans can simply stop feeding the greed machine. Whether it's cutting off the flow of funds to terrorists by reducing gas consumption, or using natural alternatives to pharmaceuticals, or just cutting off the flow of money to all large charities, including our long-beloved and formerly magnificent International Red Cross, it's the single fastest way to effect radical change in a peaceful and empowering manner. Because the typical American is far too stupid to understand that drug companies and charities are tragically packed with wholly selfish executives, this is also a solution unlikely to occur in the near-future. Most Americans are greedy selfish people who will NOT drive a bit slower or use a bit less gas. This truth is particularly tragic because the changes would occur with unprecedented rapidity.
Now, we come to the third, and