Wednesday, March 05, 2014

The Obamacare Joke Is On Us

A tongue-in-cheek warning is making the rounds: If an email offers you a functioning link to create an account on, it's a scam run by offshore con artists. Nothing on the legitimate website actually functions.

President Obama clearly senses that his signature policy achievement is on the verge of becoming a laughingstock. He responded yesterday, as is his habit, by staging a campaign-style appearance in the Rose Garden, complete with hand-picked ordinary citizens serving as silent witnesses to the Affordable Care Act's merits, while the president declared that "there's no excuse for the problems." (1)

One of those ordinary citizens, expectant mother Karmel Allison, provided a rare unscripted moment when she became woozy as she stood behind the president. Obama, who is much more likeable when he gets out of his near-constant campaign mode, quickly turned to help her as he quipped, "This happens when I talk too long." (2)

There was little else to smile about when the commander-in-chief, stating only the obvious, announced that is too slow, that "there's no excuse for the problems," and that "they are being fixed" by "some of the best IT talent in the country." (1) (That might be part of the problem. In the absence of immigration reform, maybe we should be recruiting the IT talent behind some of those fraudulent offshore websites.) At the same time, the president churlishly admonished Republicans who have opposed this law at every turn to stop "rooting for its failure." (1) He sounded like the manager of a losing ballclub who blames opposing fans for booing his players.

Obama's broad points, however, were perfectly fair - and perfectly irrelevant. Eventually, the federal website that provides an individual insurance market for 36 states will be fixed, after a fashion. Consumers will, someday, be able to go online, compare their insurance options, obtain a price that reflects any government subsidies for which they qualify, and sign up.

But it is going to take more than just speeding up the site before that can happen. Though the federal Health and Human Services department has imposed a virtual news blackout on the website's performance, word is leaking out from insurance companies that only a trickle of customers gets through, and that many of those who make it through the maze are being mishandled. Some of the information funneled to insurers is wildly inaccurate, including customers who are reported as having multiple spouses or who have signed up for multiple concurrent insurance policies.

Even after those more serious technical problems are ironed out, we will be left with a law whose fundamental architecture is flawed beyond redemption. The statute gives the sick an ironclad right to obtain insurance they are certain to buy, but healthy people have only a minimally enforced "mandate" to purchase coverage that is inherently overpriced in order to cover those who are already sick. Large employers have already received a one-year reprieve from their own mandate to offer coverage, and many are reducing their full-time headcount anyway, further diminishing the pool of people over whom risk is spread.

It gets worse. Though the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act's basic constitutionality last year, it sided with the roughly half the states that have chosen to opt out of the expansion of Medicaid, which was crucial to the law's goal of providing near-universal coverage. More litigation is underway on the question of whether the law even allows the government to offer, in the 36 states that do not offer their own exchanges, the planned subsidies for coverage for households with income between the poverty level and four times greater. A defeat on that point would mean that Obamacare would require millions of Americans to buy insurance that they simply could not afford, at least if they want to attend to matters such as paying rent or eating. The individual mandate would certainly fall at that point, leaving insurers forced to cover mainly the sick people who would still buy policies - policies whose prices would inevitably spiral upward.

The president faults Republicans for "rooting" for the law to fail. But if Obama and his party wanted GOP buy-in, the time to get it was when legislators were writing the law. It would have been a tedious, messy, uncertain process, and it might not have borne fruit. Yet had Obama asked lawmakers of both parties to help him draft a health care reform plan, he might well have gotten a sound blueprint, just as he did with the Simpson-Bowles plan for deficit reduction. (Obama did not ultimately support that deficit plan, but at least the process demonstrated that compromise is possible on difficult issues when the two parties actually work together.)

Right now neither side is being practical. Obama and other Democrats pretend that fixing Obamacare is just a matter of fixing a website. Republicans want to stop Obamacare by any means necessary - but they have no plan whatsoever for what would happen next. If the Affordable Care Act disappeared, we would still be left with serious issues of affordability and availability.

Most Americans wanted someone to do something about these issues. Somebody - namely Democrats - did. Getting what we wanted, and belatedly discovering that it isn't what we really wanted, is going to be the least funny joke of all.


1) The Washington Post, "Obama on health-care site: 'There's no excuse for the problems, and they are being fixed.'"

2) The New York Daily News, "'This happens when I talk too long:' President Obama helps fainting audience member during long-winded speech"

Saturday, February 22, 2014

Why Obama Is Not A Communist

A continuing lie from the Right is that Obama is a communist or a totalitarian.

I've lived under Communism, and I can tell these people right now that, if he had been any such thing, they would not be here to say what they are saying.

A Communist, or a totalitarian, would have put these people away in labor camps or had them shot. Instead they are free to spread their lies, using the government-built Internet of all places. And that shows just how far from reality the claims of this kind are.

A Communist would have nationalized the banks and the car manufacturing industry. Instead Obama bailed them out. And while that took a lot of outlays up front, the car manufacturing industry is recovering and is now posting strong gains. Obama has saved American capitalism from what would have been a much worse and much greater crisis. And American capitalism owes a lot to this president.

There are in fact totalitarian-minded people in America, and most of them are on the Right. These people claim that they are America and that the rest of America isn't. These people want to force everyone to be the same person and live the same way. These people want to do everything in their power to prevent Obama administration from being successful, then blame whatever problems there are on Obama and then come riding in proclaiming themselves saviors of America. And they think that the American people would be stupid enough to fall for their gag.

The people who howl wolf become not credible when a real wolf appears. And the real wolves are not on the left; they are on the Right. The Tea Party for one is a completely despicable organization. The problems they claim to address, such as the large deficits, started under Bush; but under Bush the Tea Partiers were nowhere to be seen. Obama had an excuse; he had an economy to rescue. Bush however had no such excuses even as he put America, completely unnecessarily, an additional 5 trillion dollars in debt after Clinton had the debt problem solved.

And that makes the Tea Party complete hypocrites.

Why does Obama get labeled with such ugly things by these people? Obviously because he is not one of them; and the thing that the conservative hates the most is to see someone who is not like himself be in a stronger position than is he. Clinton wasn't of them either, and he got maliciously attacked throughout his administration as well, even though by the standards of conservative "money talks BS walks" logic he was the best president that America has had - as by the standard of peace and prosperity. This is not a problem with Obama, and it is not a problem with Clinton. This is a problem with the American Right.

Not enough is being done to confront these people's lies and abuses; and there should be. When unchecked, conmen pull all sorts of tricks on the people. America's primary education system is so weak that many people fall for these conmen.

It's not enough to just reach the educated people. The rest of the population need to hear the truth as well.

By Ilya Shambat

Sunday, February 16, 2014

Hyphenated Americans Is Not America the Beautiful

There was a recent controversy because of a coke commercial in the super bowl. The commercial had people sing, "America the Beautiful" in different languages. The idea behind the commercial was that we are a melting pot. People from all different countries come here. The controversy becomes should you have to know English to live in this country? Well, here's the issue. Practically, there is no way we could have a sign in everyone's native language. I believe that we should cater to the majority on this issue, right now the majority is English. This isn't saying that you can't have alternative signs in different languages if it's feasible and practical. This also means that it doesn't always have to be English.

One of the most divisive things we can do as a country is have hyphenated Americans. What we say is, "Yeah we're all the same, but different groups." This sounds very much like a theory they tried in the 1950s... separate but equal. I will never refer to anyone as an African-American, Asian-American, Hispanic-American, or European-American. To be fair, I would love to live in a world where I didn't meet someone born in Nigeria and say, "Oh, you're an African." It would be a better experience to meet someone born in Tokyo and not automatically let Asian stereotypes flood my brain. I hate that some people are considered Americans simply because they are born here. Also, if you embrace the idea of America, I will call you American regardless of what color your skin is.

You see the problem with referring to people by nationality is that they have no choice. No one chose to be born in America. I don't think people should be punished because they were born in Mexico. There is a big push to fortify our borders in this country. Given our current setup I can agree, but only because we have a government that gives things to it's people simply for being born or living in this country. If you are against people coming into this nation because of government handouts then we can agree. If you are against people coming into this nation because they look and talk different than you then we cannot agree.

America should be an idea, not a piece of land. In a perfect world, I wish America was a place where all people who embraced the ideals of freedom could gather regardless of where they were born. I also wish that the people who were born in this country who don't embrace the ideals of taking care of yourself and your family, and living in as free of society as possible could relocate to other parts of the world. There they would find systems in place that would fit their plans for how a people should be governed.

No one is hyphenated. We are all Americans if we embrace the ideas. If I lived in a country that the majority spoke Spanish and I could be free. I would rejoice that I could be free, not that most of the people are speaking Spanish. I would rather fill this country up with immigrants of people that were born in other lands that embraced the idea of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, than live in a place that sealed off it's borders and required working people to give 30-40% of their income to a bloated federal government that promised to solve all problems.

My message to people that didn't like the coke commercial. We need more immigrants. We need more people that appreciate the idea that they aren't forced into a religion. We need more people that can speak their mind and not worry about being jailed for saying the wrong things. We need more people that are asking for an opportunity, not a solution. We need to get rid of people who think they are owed something because they can speak English.

I don't believe in a government helping the world, but I also don't believe in a government giving things to it's people. If you look down upon people because they come to this country to work, and they aren't taking anything from the government, then shame on you. I would rather have 100 illegals come into this country willing to work, than 1 "American" who thinks a job is beneath them. America is an idea, and you should be able to be here if you share the idea, regardless of where you're born. You should also be asked to leave if you don't share the idea, regardless of where you're born.

By Paul Dickens

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

American Democracy

The goal of most citizens living in the United States and of our government is to have our country considered a democratic country. Most U.S. citizens would like to see the world governed by democratically elected governments.

What is a democracy? A good definition is: "A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives." There are a few caveats, if this definition is accepted by those living in the United States.

Does the United States have a true democracy if it accepts less than 100% of the eligible voters voting? In fact, the U.S. usually gets just over half of the eligible voters voting. If the U.S. is a democracy, then those not voting are actually voting negatively. Nonvoting citizens are openly stating that they don't like the choices. Therefore, if the U.S. is to be a true democracy, more choices and probably mandatory voting laws are necessary.

What if an elected person acts illegally or gives false information to the population? Is not that person violating the trust of the people who elected him/her to hold those democratic powers? Democracy has to work on trust, the trust of the people in their representatives. Representatives, who accept money because of their position to make laws, destroy the trust the people need to have for true representatives. Accepting bribes from lobbyists also impairs the work turned out; for the results will naturally be slanted towards the positions of those providing the money.

It must be accepted that, on each level of government, a representative represents a specific group of people. A true representative might also see issues on the basis of the whole democracy (country). Still, representatives are required to represent those who elected them. The United States has representatives, known as senators, who are elected by the whole state. Senators should represent the people of their entire state, but should see beyond the state level to the national level.

This has not been the case. Individuals, such as our president, are elected at large, and should act differently. The president must assume a unique office in relation to other countries of the world. Almost every other country has a sovereign head as well as an executive head. Canada has both a prime minister and a sovereign head appointed by the Queen of England. The president of the U.S. holds both offices. The president needs to be nonpolitical in order to truly be a democratic head of state. Unfortunately, the U.S. presidents have been very political.

In 1924, J. Edgar Hoover became head of the FBI. Under his leadership, which lasted until his death in 1972, the U.S. became sort of a police state. J. Edgar Hoover collected files on Americans from all levels of society. Members of the government were the most important for him. No politician would go against Hoover or the FBI, for he had the goods on most of them. That is why he died in office.

The United States is far from being a true democracy by allowing all these deviations and corruptions to continue. The U.S. has been able to get along over the course of its history. Those times of trouble have been when very political people try to advance their particular political principles upon the country. Usually these political positions have not been for the nations good or accepted by the general population. The United States has first need to champion democracy itself before it could successfully champion democracy to the world. We are currently in such times. "We the people" must work hard to obtain democratic principles if we want a true democracy. If we don't live with democratic principles, we will continue to have all the disgraceful actions of those in power and those who feel above the law. The United States will constantly experience swings in policies if the presidency continues to change parties and thus the policies. By Chester P. Soling

Monday, October 07, 2013

Central Bankers Perform Euthanasia - Capitalism and Democracy R.I.P.

The recent actions of the ECB and the Federal Reserve have driven the final nail in the coffin of Capitalism and Democracy. Both these cornerstones of our civilization have been on life support for years. Central bankers decided last week to 'pull the plug'. Capitalism and Democracy will be replaced with a hybrid economic system combining the attributes of the old Soviet Union's command economy, the Oligarchy's of South America and efficiency and integrity of today's of today's economic system [with a dose of fascism thrown in for good measure].

"Rubbish, you declare", "Poppycock", "More left wing ranting". Fair enough dear reader, at this point in history you are still allowed your own opinion, but before you click away you should consider the following realities.

Capitalism, as defined by Wikipedia is an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit. Let us consider the following realities. Only then can we understand how our central bankers performed the 'coup de grace'.

Global spending on Weapons was 1.74 trillion in 2012. For many countries particularly the United States the largest employer in the 'private' industry is the weapons industry. In the United States, if one includes the postal service and the military over 3 million people work for the Federal Government. [Imagine if we included state and local government employees in this number] In every developed country in the world the civil service is by, far the largest employer in the country. The second largest employers are those industries or sectors such as weapons, health care or education that receive their revenue from the government. The developed world is no longer served by government. The developed world is dependent on government spending to maintain, not improve, their current lifestyle. Private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit exists only as curious anachronism in small pockets around the world. One could not possibly argue that worldwide, the automobile, banking, weapons and health care industries exist only at the pleasure of government spending. The survival of these industries is reliant on favorable government support, spending and regulation.

In simple terms most societies in their current form only because our governments borrow money from future generations to keep civil servants employed and captive industries on life support. Competition and survival of the fittest, truisms of capitalism do not exist anymore. The concepts of entrepreneur, merit, hard work, pride, sacrifice, choices, work ethic, patience, effort, pay as you go, integrity, truth, risk reward, moral hazard fairness and equality are, of course, now obsolete. To survive going forward the key will be one's ability to ''get me some of that newly printed money".

Now let us consider democracy. Once again let us use Wikipedia's definition that defines Democracy as 'a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Democracy allows people to participate equally -- either directly or through elected representative.' Dear reader, surely the death of democracy is not something we need to debate. It is self evident. No, "you still believe in democracy, you still believe that your vote counts". Please consider the following words and phrases carefully. Create an image your mind as to what each word or phrase means the system of government known as democracy: Gerrymandering, Hanging Chad's, QE 1, QE 2, unlimited campaign spending by individuals and corporations, "corporations are people too" Bailout conditions, Operation Twist, QE 3, technocrat government, TARP, Wall Street bailout, lobbying, Greece, Spain Italy, ECB terms and conditions for bond buying campaign. There are more words to help paint this picture but I do not want these disturbing images, that I imagine you created in your mind, to cause you Post Traumatic Stress. These are not words that were spawned in the evolution of democracy. These words evolved as democracy evolved into a more sinister system that left the world with the 'illusion of democracy'.

Let us now connect the dots that connect the death of capitalism and democracy to the recent actions of our central bankers. By announcing in tandem over the last couple of weeks that both federal reserve and the ECB, both led by unelected officials, that they would expand their asset purchasing [ Oh Please can we all just agree to call it money printing]. The central banks have irrevocably committed their respective governments to a course of action that is done without public consent, understanding or referendum. These have enacted fiscal policy disguised as monetary policy that will handcuff the "citizen taxpayer's" ability to manage government finances for, well, forever.

This course of action will cause a misallocation capital of historic proportions. On 'Main Street' the theft [via artificially low interest rates] of retirement income from retirees, who diligently accumulated retirement capital during their working years to provide interest income in their retirement will continue unabated. [In some ways, you have to admire baby boomers for their audacity and hubris to steal from their parents via artificially low rates as well as their children and grandchildren through absurd government borrowing. This is done to maintain the lifestyle boomers have become accustomed to. The boomers are like a Robin Hood from an alternate bizarre dimension. The boomer Robin Hood steals from old and young and keeps the money for himself] 'Moral Hazard' has been removed from decision making process. It has been replaced with a modern version of "I'm all right Jack."

Governments will be able to spend in an unlimited fashion, immorally with no fear of punishment by the bond market vigilantes. Dear reader, 'How could government spending be immoral?' you ask. When our governments spend money we don't have on goods and services we cannot afford or do not need, at prices that are not determined by a free market capitalist system only to leave the 'Butcher's Bill' to our children and grandchildren that is immoral, undemocratic and definitely not how capitalism works.

Wednesday, October 02, 2013

When Is a Democracy Less Than a Democracy?

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried", or so said Winston Churchill. But democracy cannot be that bad, can it? To answer let's take a short walk through democracy in America.Who is eligible to vote?

In theory democracy is simple enough. One person, one vote and the majority wins. But politics make democracy hard in practice. Start with the fundamental question - who has the right to vote? Originally that was only adult white males (the Constitution didn't require property ownership). With time ex- slaves (15th amendment, 1870) and then women (19th, 1920) received the franchise. Our current voter profile was finally set when the residents of Washington DC gained Electoral College votes (23rd, 1961) and the franchise was guaranteed to 18 year-olds (26th, 1971).

Actually there is more. Ex-felons' right to vote depends on where they live. If you don't think that matters consider the 2000 Presidential election. It's possible that, if Florida had let ex-felons vote, Gore would have been the President.

If you have the right to vote, does that mean you will be able to?

A putative constitutional right to vote doesn't guarantee your ability to vote; states have and continue to put hurdles on the way to the ballot box. Before the Supreme Court struck them down, literacy tests and poll taxes disqualified the poor and uneducated. (In a cynical exercise, some states 'grandfathered' voters if they or an ancestor was eligible to vote in 1867 - before blacks got the franchise).

People in power will rarely cede any advantage. When one means of suppressing votes is barred another will spring up. In states dominated by one party, the primaries are the election. Some state political parties barred blacks from voting in these primaries arguing that as private entities their primaries weren't subject to federal election law. Today ID requirements and cumbersome registration practices serve to restrict the vote.
Physical impediments can lower turnout. Targeted precincts may have fewer voting machines or longer journeys to a voting site. Voting methods or the ballot itself can confuse the voter. (2000 introduced us to the now infamous 'butterfly ballot' and dangling, swinging and pregnant chads.)

When the fox guards the hen house

Independent management of voting would solve these problems, but voting conditions are controlled by politicians. It is hard to pretend that democracy is legitimate when the 'ins' have significant influence over the process that keeps them 'in'. Florida 2000 is once again an egregious example. Katherine Harris, who as Secretary of State was responsible for elections, called a halt to the recounts with George W. Bush 537 votes ahead. Fair enough. Except that in addition to her state position she was also co-chair of Bush's Florida campaign.

Populations increase and decrease, people move. Every ten years the census counts these changes and congressional seat allocation by state is adjusted. Congressional districts are redrawn to account for the adjustment and the movement of people within the state. Five states have independent or ad-hoc committees to redraw the boundaries; Florida (ironically) has some rules on redistricting. But, as long as the process doesn't impact minority rights, in 44 states the party in power has carte blanche to redraw the districts.

The election map is distorted to lump opposition voters together in a few districts while leaving allies a majority in the bulk of them. This political adventurism is as old as the Republic. Its name, gerrymandering, is a legacy of a Congressional district drawn by Elbridge Gerry's party in 1812 Massachusetts that reminded some of a salamander.

The process and how it renders many voters irrelevant

In the US representation is 'first past the post'. The make-up of Congress is based on a district by district result and not the overall vote. (In 'proportional representation' a party is awarded seats based on its percentage of the popular vote.) Voters who live in 'safe districts' are therefore irrelevant. It doesn't matter if their representative is elected with 62% or 92% of the vote, it still just one seat, with no additional national significance.

Our political system was created to balance the rights of small and large states which leaves voters from small states with a disproportionate amount of influence. 564,000 Wyomingites have the same clout in the Senate as 37 million Californians.

This disparity in influence is compounded in the general election. The President is elected, not directly, but by a vote of the Electoral College. And because each state's electoral votes is equal to its number of Representatives plus two Senators, voters in small states again profit. Each of Vermont's 3 Electoral College votes represents 208,000 Vermonters; each of Texas's 38 votes represents 661,000 Texans.

Adding to this disparity is the custom of giving all of a state's electoral votes to the winner. The citizens of states that consistently vote for the same party have no role in electing the President. Massachusetts last voted Republican in 1984. Kansas last voted Democrat in 1964.

Democracy in America

Democracy in America is compromised by disenfranchisement; it is compromised by political interference; it is compromised by the very design of our government. But the greatest damage to our democracy comes from a self-inflicted wound. Half of us don't vote. And of those that do, many don't pay much attention.
Winston Churchill was scathing: "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter".

Jefferson however had a solution: "Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."Which might explain why many politicians are so strident in discrediting teachers and the media; if you cannot stop people voting then at least keep them uneducated and ill-informed. By Pitt Griffin

Monday, July 22, 2013

True Democracy

True democracy should be about unity at the core, and balance. Democracy is about the people determining what is best for their nation as a whole. The people have the power and they must insure the unity and balance is not taken from them... for this could happen unexpectedly.

Perhaps democracy is only a dream today, or more like an illusion; a ghost of what once was. We believe in democracy, in America, because we want to. In the same manner as a faithful person wants to believe in God. The idea of a loving creator is nice to imagine, just like the idea of a political system uniting humanity and bringing an end to tyranny may also be a pleasant thought. Seeking after philosophical ways of making logical sense in how a loving God governs a world like ours; people can debate for years on such an issue. Neither side can prove though, without a shadow of a doubt that there is, or is not, a loving God. How could people prove democracy is more than a dream today, more than an illusion?

Like America, Rome was a Republic with democratic values. The Roman model of governance inspired many political thinkers, and today's modern democracies imitate the Roman and Greek models. The major difference from the Roman Republic model, (and one of the primary reasons our modern day democracy may be so flawed), is the fact our present political leaders are paid millions of dollars for being in their positions. In ancient Rome the political leaders chose to serve their nation without payment. They earned their money by other means while viewing their job as senators to be an honor, since they were able to serve those less fortunate. In the days of the Republic, before Julius Caesar shook things up, the people knew the senators cared about helping to bring a balance to Rome.

The political, cultural, and economic forces which held the Roman Empire together were removed because of Economic fragmentation, eventually leading to the Dark Ages. Following the economical mistakes made in Rome the empire continued to digress because of the crumbling of political, military, and other social institutions, along with invasions from outside peoples, and usurpers from within the empire. The Roman Empire held onto their particular values in politics for a time, but eventually they allowed outside influences to change these values, and wash away the foundations of the Republic. Rome started to lose their identity as others came in from foreign lands and started to change the Roman individuality. In summary, the economy collapsed, outside influences started to change Rome, and eventually too many wars, attacks, and dependence on the crumbling government brought about the ultimate fall of Rome... The loss of democratic values was subtle at first, and then by the time the people depended unequivocally upon the power of their leader, or government, their leaders had little to offer. The damage from all the mistakes made in Rome drained the economy, and helped make the populace an ignorant people who depended too much on the "elite" for help. Soon the Dark Ages followed after what was left of the empire crumbled...

Today America is the great empire, or as the world believes, the great democratic nation. the march on Wall Street, the fact that more than six in ten Americans oppose the U.S. war in Afghanistan, (according to a new national poll), the protests against government spending, and our government officials being unable to unite so as to solve our present economical woes; these problems should not face a properly ran democracy. If the people want the issue resolved in a Democratic Nation, then the issue should be resolved, or else this is not a system of government based on the principle of majority decision making.

Instead of tyranny and a dictatorship, democracy provides opportunities for the people to control how their nation is ran. The political "leaders" should work for the people, and the people can oust them without need for violence, or any sort of revolution. Why are the people ignored today by their political leaders' in America? If the people declare, "we want to stop fighting. We want the war to end", then the soldiers' should be brought home. Despite the argument on whether something may be a good idea or a bad idea; the people determine what will be done. For better or worse, they should receive what they demand, or else face the truth that they no longer live in a truly democratic nation. If the leaders ignore what the majority want and they decide to do what they feel is best, (despite what the citizens want), then how can such a nation still be defined as democratic?

The idea of democracy and the importance of this political ideal can be summarized in the word "unity". Democracy is supposed to be about something bigger than one's self. Democracy is bigger than ones culture, ones past, one's personal desires. Democracy is supposed to be a balanced system where what is best for humanity as a whole is focused on instead what may be best for an individual or a group of a select privileged few. If our motive is love for something greater than ourselves, no ingratitude will hinder us from serving our fellow man. Democracy should be about love for humanity and equality. There is an idea that one's love for self is most important. Conclusively an individual will end up hurting themselves and those they love if they only depend on their selves. Every individual is flawed and their emotions lead to more trouble. Democracy was meant to unite a nation and preserve freedom and justice for all. It's quite clear in our nation's history that the founding fathers' wanted those in our democracy to believe in something greater than self. Sadly most live for themselves first in our nation today, and unity doesn't last... A house divided will fall.

The people believe in democracy in America, because we want to... Is this a democratic nation or a crumbling empire where the people place their allegiance in the leaders more than in the values their nation was founded upon? We are surely not united and balanced today. The political leaders cannot even unite to fix our economic crises. The people can't seem to unite and succeed in receiving what they ask for. Is democracy an illusion, a ghost of what once was? Ultimately if democracy has failed in our nation, this is because we, the people, have failed our nation.
By L. L Brunk