But, Jack! I just can't take hearing strong words like "bullshit". I have to go for counseling when I hear stuff like that... ;-)

I just think it's "business as usual" that causes the system to be what it is, and it always has been. Politics is a matter of pragmatism, and pragmatism is usually a matter of money. Those who have the most money in play tend to determine the policy, don't they? And the policy is directed in order that they should make more money.

To even use the word "conspiracy" anymore these days is to cease to have any kind of reasonable discussion at all, because the term "conspiracy theory" is used now as a standard attack phrase simply to discredit and pooh-pooh someone else's statement about something. It's kind of like the "little green men" phrase in regards to any discussion about UFO sightings. It reduces the discussion to a meaningless exercise in ridicule and dismissal.

"Conspiracy" is now a word that has pretty much been rendered useless, in my opinion, by several decades of constant debunking and ridicule by people who merely don't like something someone else is saying.

I say it's a "way of life" and a "way of doing business", not a conspiracy. If all the people involved in that way of life and that way of doing business had EXACTLY the same objectives in mind....then I guess you could call it a conspiracy. But they don't. They have a variety of different objectives in mind, because they are all seeking an objective that will cause just them to profit...not cause everybody to profit.

This is also true of the general public. They usually want politicians to:

1. lower their taxes
2. increase their benefits
3. and improve social services
4. and provide "defense" (security)

Understandable! ;-) But is it also possible to do all that simultaneously? Hmmm....

Now, the problem is that the general public doesn't have as much financial clout as the major corporations and major banks do. Correct?

So who will the politicians listen to more? He who has more financial clout in Washington, that's who. But who will the politicians act like they are listening to? Why, the general public, of course, because if they don't, the general public won't vote for them.

And that's how it goes in the USA, in Canada, in the UK, in Germany, everywhere. Election campaigning is mostly exaggerated and specious appeals to the hopes and dreams of the general public, followed by pragmatic bargaining with the major financial powers that be after the election is over.

Is that a conspiracy? No. It's just a way of pragmatically working with real power when you are in the halls of power. And it's been happening more or less forever.

Occasionally a national crisis arises that is so grave that sweeping revolutionary changes must be made. In FDR's case, that crisis was the Great Depression and the onset of WWII. It was a crisis that affected the whole world. To his credit, he acted quite decisively and he brought in some very progressive social legislation. He had enormous public support to do that, and he did it.

Obama could have done something similar to FDR with the enormous wave of public support he had right after his election in 2008. He didn't. He has acted very timidly, in my opinion, and I'm disappointed in his performance. I'm also disappointed in his foreign war policies which are costing an incredible amount of money and producing nothing.

I do think, though, that McCain would have been even a lot worse! But it's a moot point. McCain never even had a chance of being elected in 2008...after 8 years of George W. Bush and an economic meltdown? Not a chance.