Search This Blog

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

If You Want "Change", Then Lines of Succession Must Be

If you really want to understand why in spite of all the rhetoric you hear one election cycle after another no 'Change' ever occurs in any aspect of government or the overall System at any time, it all comes down to one word..

Succession.

For instance, let's say a President in office is impeached, decides to resign or chokes on some cherries and no more, then what happens?

The Vice President who is always of the same political party and picked directly by that former President will for all intent and purposes continue pushing the same political aims and objectives.
And if the VP now President was to voluntarily leave office or slip and fall on a banana peel in a manner most unsavory?

Well then the Speaker of the House takes over..

Now even though the Speaker can be of a different political party, the Cabinet would still be composed of appointees of the original President..

And the Speaker ultimately is bought and paid for by the same wealthy political donors and corporations who like to hedge their 'bets' as all other politicians of both parties..
 Let's put it this way..  Now that Congressman Ron Paul is retired, please name one person currently serving in any position of Federal government in any branch who has publicly expressed the need for the Federal Reserve to be eliminated

Neither can we..

This means even in a total disaster where the Presidential line of succession went down to the lowest member of the Cabinet (Secretary of Homeland Security is 17th in line) you still have every single person in line who would be pro-banks, pro-Wall Street, pro-war and all the other rot..

OK so no change there..
What about the Fed Chair?

The President appoints one every four years on a different cycle from normal elections so their term overlaps..

So let's say the current Chair Janet Yellen quit or took an overdose of sleeping pills?

Well, then the Vice-Chair steps in..

Nice and neat and tidy..
When that Bastard former Chair Ben Bernanke was in power, Yellen was Vice Chair which is why the only difference between the two is where their sex organs are located..

The overall ideologies and 'do everything for the banks, corporations, Investors & 1%' mindset is consistent

And if four years passes and the President wants a new Fed Chair?

Easy..  He chooses from a small list of candidates the Fed board themselves provide which ensures no one from the 'outside' ever gets in and meddles from within with their total control over the money supply..
So no change here either..

What is the line of succession with the legislative branch?

If a Senator or Congressperson resigns or their airplane crashes, that state's Governor simply appoints someone to fill that slot until the next election cycle..

He/she would almost always be the same political party and ideology as the Governor, and not necessarily the person being replaced..

So the chances of a real mover and shaker entering Congress this way is pretty remote..
In the judicial branch, the President simply appoints someone who satisfies their ideological litmus test and hope later on that person in power didn't pull a political 180 degree turn..

No one from the outside ever gets in..

And the people who run for office?

Mostly professional politicians who've run for and held one office or another and are deeply entrenched in the System; professionals in the game of scurrying about for donations and perfecting the art of saying nothing with a smile
The vast majority of politicians and those who choose to run for public office are attorneys, one of the most vile and unethical professions one can get a degree in; people who get paid handsomely to lie in a courtroom and do so conscious-free

And that one in a billion who actually slips through the cracks and crevices to make it through the obstacle course into a position of real decision-making power?

They're marginalized or smeared or framed or killed..
The more you have invested in a System-  salary, home, 401k, stocks, etc, the less likely you would ever make any public policy to rock the boat or cause oneself financial loss

Take the President for instance..

According to CNN, May 15, 2009:

"Obama holds the bulk of his investing assets in U.S. Treasury bonds, with a range of between $1 million and more than $5 million...
He also has between $101,000 and $265,000 in two checking accounts (with JP Morgan Chase bank)...

The vast majority of his mutual fund holdings are in the Vanguard FTSE Social Index fund (VFTSX), with a range of between $115,000 and $250,000."

At the time, Obama owned stock in JP Morgan Chase, Apple, Google, Intel and McDonalds to name a few..  We assume the same stocks are still owned

Does anyone really think Obama would institute any policy for the greater societal good which would cause the Dow to drop or his personal bank JP Morgan Chase to collapse?
We're going to speculate here for a moment..

Let's say back in May 2009, the President owned $10k in stocks with JP Morgan Chase which were then valued at $36.90, that would mean Obama would be in possession of 271 shares

Today. the stock is valued at $57.93 thanks to infinite QE, the super-low interest financing for banks and other lax regulation..

So if the President sold all his stock today ($57.93 x 271 shares)

Those stocks based on the speculative example, would be worth $15,699, a profit of $5,699
And don't forget until recently it was perfectly legal for members of Congress to participate in insider trading..  This is why no one in public office got financially hurt during the 2008 crash.

They All knew when to get out..

Any politician who is invested in the market has a conflict of interest between what's in the public's best interest and what's best for Investors and the 1%
And the lines of political succession are full of the same scoundrels

Top to bottom..

Succession control is more than any other more complex reason is why absolutely nothing ever gets done economically for the everyday person's behalf..

And why ultimately the difference between Dems and Reps in financial matters, are more subtle than most which to acknowledge..