The difference between the political parties
CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- During the campaign of 1932 Hoover promised "A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage." In response Roosevelt advocated experimentation in his "New Deal." Roosevelt's approach was to put the 12 million unemployed to work, starting at state level in work projects he instituted. The Republicans referred to FDR's New Deal as give away programs that ruined the country. But in the end all facets of society profited; and like cream rises to the top, the rich became richer. To those who lived during that period the profound change was evident.
The Democratic Party was founded on states' rights as a base for their platform. President Eisenhower followed along this same line of reasoning with the "Interstate Highway System" that definitely originated in the states. A program that benefited the nation second only to Social Security. It is always better to build from a solid foundation upward such as the structure of a pyramid demonstrates.
The Republican Party advocates just the opposite in their "Trickle Down Philosophy." Reagan's trickle down proved to be a meltdown with the national debt growing to astronomical heights. There is only one structure that starts at the top and trickles down; and that is an "icicle." An icicle with diminishing configuration clearly displays the end product of a trickle down philosophy, a "drop." Diminishing returns: A rate of yield that beyond a certain point fails to increase in proportion to additional investments of labor or capital. The Republican's philosophy is determined to start at the top and trickle down to the last drop.
Not withstanding, the America we now live in is controlled by a small number of individuals who are obtaining the power to forbid any but themselves the ability to supply the masses with the common necessities of life. The rich are becoming more oppressive while the oppressed become desperate.
Time to change our Israel policy
At last, and not since the overthrow of the U.S. installed dictator (the Shah) in 1979, our U.S. diplomats are publicly talking to Iranian diplomats as human beings trying to avoid a war.
And who is persisting in vilifying the Iranian government as if they are monsters from another planet and filling the airways with the heaviest of warnings and threats?
Of course, it is Prime Minister of Israel Netanyahu who has used Iran as a boogeyman for years to distract attention from Israel's continued theft of Palestinian land and creation of an apartheid country.
U.S. support of far right Israeli policy is costing us dearly in political support and money around the world while our own problems at home go shortchanged.
And on the nuclear issue, Israel's nuclear bombs and constant threats are a grave danger.