Letters to the Editor

Voting power

October 14, 2011


To the editor:

For the past few weeks, thousands of Americans have gathered on Wall Street protesting the disparity between the top 1 percent wealthiest Americans and the other 99 percent of Americans struggling to maintain. What is especially galling was the bailout of these same banks and Wall Street by American tax dollars that then were used to provide extravagant bonuses for Wall Street executives!

The newspaper and TV “pundits” seem bewildered because there are no demands by these protestors, no articulated list of grievances to be addressed. Perhaps one of the causes of these demonstrations is the feeling of impotence on the part of the American voter, who elected politicians based on their campaign pledges. Once elected, they conveniently forget all their wonderful promises and instead pursue selfish, self-centered agendas designed to get them re-elected.

This “political amnesia” seems applicable to all politicians. Democrats like President Obama, who promised to end our wars, and our illustrious Republican governor, Brownback, ruthlessly abusing power and running roughshod over the Kansas people in his dream to one day run for president. This callous disregard for the voter, makes our votes virtually worthless, makes all voters inconsequential, into “non-sequiturs,” turns America’s “democratic process” into a tragic joke.

The simple solution? Voter-imposed term limits! If a politician doesn’t honor his commitments, then they are fired in the next election by the 99 percent for lying and making empty campaign promises. We 99 percent do have the power to provide meaningful consequences for politicians’ bad behavior!


Brock Masters 6 years, 5 months ago

I agree Obama should not have bailed out these banks. I just don't believe they were too big to fail.

And you're right, we the people need to impose term limits for those that do not represent us.

Maddy Griffin 6 years, 5 months ago

Obama didn't. He bailed out the auto industry. The Wall Street baillout was signed before Bush left office.

Maddy Griffin 6 years, 5 months ago

Obama didn't. He bailed out the auto industry. The Wall Street baillout was signed before Bush left office.

Maddy Griffin 6 years, 5 months ago

Get a clue. Soros is NOT behind the Occupy movementg.

voevoda 6 years, 5 months ago

Liberty_One, Perhaps you would be happiest in a tiny country of your own. Then you could be your own government, and the rest of us wouldn't be subject to your ridicule for thinking differently.

designdiva 6 years, 5 months ago

They elected Brownback.

There, fixed it for ya.

Cait McKnelly 6 years, 5 months ago

Well, there is to an extent. Obama believes in pre-birth abortion. Brownback believes in post-birth abortion.

Liberty275 6 years, 5 months ago

To be fair, Brownback hasn't ordered the assassination of an American citizen.

Ken Lassman 6 years, 5 months ago

To be fair, Obama hasn't ordered the dismantlement of the mental and disability support system, arts subsidies for rural and small towns and public school finance.

Liberty275 6 years, 5 months ago

So which do you care about more? The President denying an American citizen due process and assassinating him (which is blatantly unconstitutional) or the things done by Brownback which I assume are constitutional (but feel free to correct me if I am wrong)?

Ken Lassman 6 years, 5 months ago

Now that's a classic example of the "have you stopped beating your wife" question isn't it?

Rephrase the question into a less inflammatory form and I might consider discussing it. The way it is currently presented doesn't really warrant responding to.

Ken Lassman 6 years, 5 months ago

Actually, part of it IS over the word "blatantly." To think that this was anything but a very carefully measured action is just histrionics. Firstly, I can safely posit that any of the US presidents back to Washington would have signed the same order, considering that Alawi had sequestered himself deep into a country where no summons could have been delivered, thereby putting himself out of the reach of the due process accorded to him as a citizen. Secondly, he was openly plotting to kill his fellow citizens. I can't see any president, given those circumstances, that wouldn't have done exactly the same thing.

So inflammatory it remains, and I see no need for further discussion with L275 until he/she indicates that the purpose for posting is for actual discussion and not glorified trolling.

Ken Lassman 6 years, 5 months ago

Well, I could say that you are slandering them by saying that they wouldn't have stood up to a US born terrorist intent on killing US citizens and soldiers who was out of the reach of the due process he would have faced had he not been hiding in Yemen.

Since we are talking about mostly dead men, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. But both Clinton and Cheney have defended the move as justified--look it up.

Liberty275 6 years, 5 months ago

"Actually, part of it IS over the word "blatantly.""

Are you saying it wasn't a blatant act? Was the drone targeting someone other than an American? Was the bomb aimed at some random house?

No it was a blatant assassination which makes it a blatant violation of the due process clause in the constitution.

Ken Lassman 6 years, 5 months ago

From Mirriam-Webster on "blatant:" "noisy especially in a vulgar or offensive manner"

So no, the strike was very carefully measured, thought out and was in no way was common or vulgar. It was also not a vulgar or offensive violation of due process due to the fact that Awlaki had consciously and carefully removed himself from that sphere, and even so, the Obama Administration made it clear that this was discussed extensively before deciding to move ahead. This is no way is a decision that opens the door to unfettered assassinations of everyone who disagrees with Obama that some hysterical commentators are making it out to be.

Brownback drastically cutting payments for folks with disabilities to be able to stay in the community, or shutting down SRS offices, forcing communities to cough up the funds, using executive authority to take away rural/small town arts monies, and turning public financing of schools on its head are all both vulgar and offensive to a large number of Kansans. Most if not all of these actions show very little forethought as to their consequences, rather they were ideologically driven with little to no input from the key stakeholders. So I think you could make a pretty strong case for Brownback's actions as being blatant to a majority of Kansans.

Liberty275 6 years, 5 months ago

Why should I rephrase the question? If you don't like the words, censor them for yourself. I don't have a problem stating that violating an American citizen's constitutional rights and assassinating him is far worse than anything and everything Brownback has done or can do.

Cait McKnelly 6 years, 5 months ago

Even more proof: they elected Sam Brownback.

Richard Heckler 6 years, 5 months ago

How to impose term limits? Stop voting for incumbents!

And: Let's demand a new system and vote in Fair Vote America : http://www.fairvote.org/irv/ Demand a change on the next ballot.

Let's have public financing of campaigns. Citizens cannot afford special interest money campaigns for it is the citizens that get left out. Let citizens vote on this issue. http://www.publicampaign.org/

Bribery of elected officials is the most stinky of all bribery!

Richard Heckler 6 years, 5 months ago

Ralph Nader is all for term limits and has been for quite some time. During his campaigns he suggests NOT RETURNING 90% of incumbents each election cycle.

I disagree. I say DO NOT RETURN 95% of incumbents each election cycle.

Vote Nader for President! The man that has been representing taxpayers and consumers for decades.

Flap Doodle 6 years, 5 months ago

If enough disappointed progressives throw their votes away on Nader then the Current Regime will surely fall. That's a good thing.

jafs 6 years, 5 months ago

Your first sentence is perhaps the first thing you've said that I can agree with without any reservations.

It's the real danger for Obama in the next election.

Combined with folks just not turning out at all.

Flap Doodle 6 years, 5 months ago

jafs, the second sentence is also pretty darned spiffy,

Liberty275 6 years, 5 months ago

Nader is a parody and hated by the left. OTOH, Hilary could cost Obama the election if she so desired.

beatrice 6 years, 5 months ago

Paul could also cost the election for Romney (the most likely candidate) should Paul give up the pretense of being a Republican and run as a Libertarian. Clinton wouldn't do that to the Democrats, and I suspect Paul wouldn't to the Republicans. I don't see a third party being a factor in the 2012 election, unless a tea party type steps in late.

Liberty275 6 years, 5 months ago

Cain is the one you need to worry about. Ron Paul is a pipe dream (LOL) and the right wing won't embrace a Mormon. Also, Romneycare. Perry is a RINO wingnut and conservatives aren't fooled by his conversion.

Bachman would probably make a good vice president. While she is derided constantly and a hair radical, I think she has the ability to take up the job should tragedy strike and have enough guts to stare down any other world leader if they felt froggy during the transition.

I suspect if Cain is nominated, Paul will endorse him because their overall agendas are quite similar other than the more libertarian social agenda Mr Paul has.

I'd like to see Palin as a two-term senator run later for president. I want to see a female president in my lifetime, and right now I think her prospects are the best on the right if she gets her act together.

Hilary is a wildcard. If it was between Romney and Hilary, and I had no libertarian choice, I'd choose Hilary. She has proven herself well as secretary of state. Further she is a better man than her boss will ever be.

Richard Heckler 6 years, 5 months ago

Occupy Wall Street Updates:




Yes. Former President George W. Bush repeatedly claimed that those who put their money in private accounts would be “guaranteed a better return than they would receive from the current Social Security system.

But every sale of stock on the stock market includes the disclaimer: “the return on this investment is not guaranteed and may be negative” for good reason. During the 20th century, there were several periods lasting more than ten years when the return on stocks was negative.

After the Dow Jones stock index went down by over 75% between 1929 and 1933, the Dow did not return to its 1929 level until 1953.

In claiming that the rate of return on a stock investment is guaranteed to be greater than the return on any other asset, Bush was lying. If an investment-firm broker made this claim to his clients, he would be arrested and charged with stock fraud. Michael Milken went to jail for several years for making just this type of promise about financial investments.


Richard Heckler 6 years, 5 months ago

About the financial crisis and the passage of the Bush administration’s $700 billion bailout of Wall Street.

What were the factors in deciding who received bailout funds?

And what happened to all the money? The answer to those two simple questions is: We don’t know.

Journalism investigative team Donald Barlett and James Steele try to find an answer. The problem is, they write, "once the money left the building, the government lost all track of it."


Richard Heckler 6 years, 5 months ago

Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson actually called that meeting. He called the heads of those banks the night before and said, “I want you here tomorrow in Washington.” He was very vague as to what the purpose of the meeting was.

But once they got there, he told them, “You are taking money. We are going to buy stock in your banks. And we need to get this economy going again.” Some bankers objected, saying by accepting this money it would look like they were weak. Others simply said they didn’t need it.

The fact of the matter is, one of the things we concluded very early on in this whole process is that while Treasury was trying to create the image that there was widespread weakness in these banks — and then there was a credit freeze, there’s no doubt about that — the way they went about this, just throwing the money out there in hopes that that would get the economy going, is not really what this was all about.

There were just a handful of institutions that were terribly weakened. AIG the insurer, Bank of America, Citigroup, those three were clearly in very weakened form. So, many of the other big banks were not. And the best example that they didn’t need this money in the beginning was that many of them, within just a very few months, paid everything back.


bearded_gnome 6 years, 5 months ago

we've seen other far left crazy letters from this writer.

first, many of the occuhippies have signs and speak words expressing that they want "revolution."

according to a New york Magazine [a liberal magazine] 34% of the occuhippies believe that our government "is worse than Al-Qaeda!" and 37% of them believe that "capitalism is inherently immoral!*"
and, these occuhippies certainly do not represent "99%." more like less than 10%. they are, hoever, the face of the modern democrat party.

while we do oppose bailouts, that's one single point of agreement between Tea Partiers and occuhippies, w do not support government getting bigger.

the bonuses were part of contractual agreements. do little Curt (the LTE writer) and the ocuhippies really want the federal government to have the power to abrigate any american's employment contract conditions? I do not think so. if they do, that's really big government!

it is also unamerican.

but then, most of the dozens of wacko "progressiv" goals/conditions expressed by the occuhippies are indeed unamerican.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.