?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Congresscritters: grump - MoonScape [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
e_moon60

[ website | My Website ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Congresscritters: grump [Nov. 7th, 2009|02:19 pm]
e_moon60
[Tags|]
[Current Mood |annoyed]

It's no secret that I'm not thrilled with any of the local Congresscritters, both mine and those who used to be mine and got redistricted away.   Nor either Texas U.S. Senator, for that matter.   Silvermane and Blondie are neither one of them a credit to the Senate and Blondie's indecent determination to wrap herself in military might she never earned...well.   I am sick of pictures of Blondie posing with military people trying to look both glamorous and tough.   I'm sorry, darlin', the whole cheerleader thing has gotten older than you are.

It's not just the matter of health care reform, though my latest desire to whap the two nearest Congressmen upside the head with a clue-bat is related to that.   My very own braindead incompetent, John Carter, keeps sending out these dishonest, nonfactual bits of neocon publicity, and then has an automatic calling thing call our number with a recorded voice telling me to stay on the line for an important message--and then a recording of *him*, the blustering loudmouth himself, spewing a load of untruth about health care and wanting me to stay on the line for a "town meeting" phone call.   At which I can ask questions.  Yeah...like "Why are you scaremongering and lying, you scumsucker?"    Inevitably it's at a time when I need to leave for something else (most recently, to pick Michael up from work)  and I'm well aware that interrupting the Great One and telling him what an idiot I think he is would do no good.   I've communicated my opinions in writing already. 

The other one, who used to be my Congresscritter before redistricting, has become more neocon than he used to be (to stay elected in that district, I'm sure) and he's now turned on the healthcare proposal.  Both of them yammer about fiscal responsibility...and the national debt.    If they really were for fiscal responsibility would they have bent over and said yes, sir, thank you, sir every time Bush asked for more money for the war?  No.   Would they have voted to bail out the big banks and investment houses?  No.   Would they have voted for changes in the bankruptcy laws that made it harder for individuals, but easier for corporations, to file for bankruptcy?  No.  They don't give a flip about fiscal responsibility, really.  It's just buzzwords for the constituency.

What really burns me about this is that they email and call and write, but you can't hit "return" and answer their emails because that's a fake return address.   You can't pick up the phone and call and get them (unless, I suppose, you're a huge supporter)--you get their paid-for-by-taxpayers staffers.   They wrap themselves in layer after layer of well-paid sycophancy, isolating themselves from anyone who doesn't agree with them,  and hand out pronouncements to the rest of us. 

Well, that's one of the things that really burns me.  Another is the fact that these guys think it's fine for taxpayers to pay for their health care--the best system around, it's generally acknowledged.  That's not fiscally irresponsible.  But tax money spent on taxpayers' health care....ooooooh, eeeevilll.  

Carter was also on the "if you give people more weeks of unemployment they'll just hold out for better jobs" side of things, which is ridiculous when there are no better jobs.  There are no JOBS for most of the people who are looking, and have been looking.  What does he not get about that simple reality???  

Some of these guys are younger than I am, so I can't count on outliving them.

LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: kengr
2009-11-07 09:32 pm (UTC)
They don't get the reality because that's not part of their worldview.

In *their* worldview, not having a job is because you aren't trying hard enough (or have standards that are too high).

It's the same sort of thing that goes with the "welfare cheats" mindset (in spite of a few studies I recall that showed the measures to "prevent fraud" were costing more than the fraud they were intended to prevent (and let's not go into the corrosive effect of having to kowtow to petty bureaucrats)).
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: e_moon60
2009-11-08 08:23 am (UTC)
Their reality has always included privilege, including Daddy's network of good ol' boys who will always find a job for "junior."
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: gauroth
2009-11-08 12:11 am (UTC)
"if you give people more weeks of unemployment they'll just hold out for better jobs

Whaaat? That makes no sense! Has this guy any idea at all about what happens in the real world?

I shouldn't comment, really, since I live across the Pond and it's not my business. (Though we don't lack for similar idiots in the UK). Posts like this, though, give me hope that the USA is still, somehow, trying to live up to earlier ideals. Caring for the poor (the 'huddled masses') and not being greedy at the expense of other people still seem good ideas to me - here as well as 'Over There.'

As far as most politicians go, however, I quote the Duchess of Avon: "Ah, bah!"
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: e_moon60
2009-11-08 08:10 am (UTC)
The Heritage Foundation, a conservative "think tank" (!), has been making that claim and the neocon elephants are trudging happily in the same track. It is, after all, their belief that no one would work if not in fear of starvation (other than CEOs with golden parachutes, who do it for the good of the country and are otherwise wholly unselfish.) The masses of citizens are lazy and selfish and have to be firmly managed (according to them) by them (according to them.) Thus providing unemployment benefits at all encourages people to laze around, luxuriating in their unearned wealth, and extending them, just because there are no jobs, is one more waste of money on mere human lives. Money should be spent to kill people, not support them.

The real world is something they avoid contact with, as it would shatter their illusions.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: grassrose
2009-11-08 04:44 am (UTC)
Tiny blessings: Caller ID and an answering machine. Anyone I don't recognize can leave a message. If I FEEL like it, I'll call back.

That doesn't address your main issue, though. I have no answers for that one.
:-P
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: moonsinger
2009-11-08 03:31 pm (UTC)
Honest and politician don't belong in the same sentence. Doesn't matter which party, doesn't matter which topic. Oh and under hypocrite in the dictionary, it should have a picture of a politician.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: e_moon60
2009-11-08 04:05 pm (UTC)
Under "hypocrite" should be the picture of a televangelist.

Under "politician" should be a picture of a hand, with the familiar gesture that means "give me the money."

The problem with assuming they're all equally dishonest on all topics is that a) it's not true (some of them are honest about some topics) and b) it leads to thinking that nothing can be done about them. Something can--throwing them out at frequent intervals, so they have less reason to go bad just to seek re-election, would help.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: moonsinger
2009-11-08 04:31 pm (UTC)
Hmm, well I could concede the first point--televangelists are probably worse than politicians. I was too vague on my second sentence, I meant that you could find in a given party a dishonest politician on a particular topic not that all politicians are dishonest about all topics.

As much as I'm cynical about politics and politicians, I do vote though. I voted this last election on the state amendments. I do write a few times a year to my various representatives/senators and I've called (got a staffer), so despite my cynicism, I haven't divorced myself from the political process. Oh, and I've been a registered Republican, Libertarian, and Independent in my life (Independent now as I realized that no party represents me). I will be voting against my current Congresscritter and the current governor in the next elections.

Still in my heart of hearts, I don't feel very represented at the local, state, or federal level. About all I feel that I can do is try to vote them out like you say. It is sad though that I feel more like I'm voting against someone than for someone.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: faxpaladin
2009-11-08 11:39 pm (UTC)
Is Chet your pre-redistricting critter? He's mine, and announced he'd be voting against. Feh.

I will say that between Blondie and Goodhair for governor, I'll take Blondie in a Dallas minute. I'll probably wind up voting for Kinky in November, though I can't say I'm real enthusiastic about him, either...
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: e_moon60
2009-11-09 01:39 am (UTC)
Well...yeah. Blondie is marginally smarter than Goodhair.

And yes, Chet was my critter before the Bushwhacking of Texas districts--now I've got Carter, who's an unadulterated bonehead. I'm quite annoyed with Chet for voting against and also for not having a valid "reply" email addy.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)