NJ package handler
New Member
As the 2008 presidential elections approach, a growing crisis is engulfing the United States and the rest of the world. Not knowing where to look for answers, millions of people inside and out of the U.S. are placing their hopes in the outcome of this contest.
The mainstream media and supporters of both candidates are going all out to convince us of the importance of this “decisive election,” but as we will show, Barrack Obama and John McCain are simply two “new” versions of the same old crap.
The sham of “democracy” in the United States
Democracy means government of the people, but it is not the people that rule in the U.S.
The majority of the U.S. population has opposed the war in Iraq for years, yet the U.S. government continues to wage it unabated.
Millions turned out to vote for candidates from the Democratic Party in the 2006 midterm elections in hopes that they would work to end the war in Iraq only to have those same politicians continue to authorize it once in office.
If there were truly a “government of the people” in the United States, the war in Iraq would have ended long ago and public funds would be used on things like education and healthcare instead of bombs and corporate handouts.
Two parties, one master
In our society the population is, for the most part, divided into two camps: the toiling masses that have to work to survive and the rich capitalist minority that profits from their work. It is that capitalist elite which rules–by virtue of its control of all the factories, transportation and distribution networks, etc.—and the politics of the country reflect that.
Every president since 1853 has belonged to either the Democratic or Republican Party.
Both the Democrats and the Republicans represent the same ruling capitalist elite. Both parties receive their major funding from the same corporations and banks. Wal-Mart gives nearly the same amount of money to the Democratic Party as it does the Republican Party. Pfizer and AT&T do the same. Other corporations, like Home Depot and AFLAC, give a little more to the Democrats, but still make sure to donate substantially to the Republicans.
The list goes on and on.
As the saying goes, he who pays the piper calls the tune.
Because both Obama and McCain represent the same group of people, their policies are fundamentally the same. Any differences between them are primarily strategic. In other words, they differ only in what they think is the best way for the capitalists to rule.
Minor differences, major similarities
Even on issues of strategy, Obama and McCain have very few differences.
In early October, both Senators voted in for the widely unpopular Wall Street “bailout,” doing their parts in the government’s move to hand over at least $700 billion in federal funds to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, which he will distribute to the very banks and financial institutions that helped create the very financial crisis the “bailout” is supposed to help resolve. Obama and McCain’s votes also helped secure $150 billion in tax cuts to businesses and the wealthy. When asked who they would choose to serve as Treasury Secretary were they to become president, both candidates have suggested billionaire investor Warren Buffet, an iconic member of the capitalist class they serve.
Both candidates support anti-democratic legislation such as the USA PATRIOT Act and government spying on U.S. citizens.
On the issue of war, the candidates have some differences—though not of the kind you may imagine.
For the last several years, a key criticism of George W. Bush by many Democrats has been that he tied down troops in Iraq that could have been better used elsewhere. The Democrats aren’t against war, they just think that Bush decided to wage it in the wrong place.
Obama subscribes to this outlook wholeheartedly. While posing as an “anti-war” candidate in order to “rein in” the tens of millions of people in the United States who oppose the war in Iraq, Obama actually plans to expand the massive U.S. war machine.
Colin Kahl, Obama’s top adviser on Iraq, recently penned a report for the imperialist think tank Center for a New American Security in which he stated that in Iraq, “the U.S. should aim to transition to a sustainable over-watch posture (of perhaps 60,000-80,000 forces) by the end of 2010.”
Richard Danzig, Obama’s chief national security advisor, recently told the press that if elected, Obama would massively increase U.S.. military spending (which is already equal to the military budgets of all the other countries in the world combined) before saying that Bush’s Pentagon chief, Robert Gates, would make an “even better [chief] in an Obama administration.”
Obama chose Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former National Security Advisor under President Jimmy Carter who engineered the “Carter Doctrine” which stated that the U.S. would use force to secure oil in the Persian Gulf, to be his foreign policy advisor.
Obama’s running mate, Senator Joseph Biden, elaborated on he and Obama’s militarist ambitions during the October 2, 2008, vice-presidential debates, promising to step up the war in Afghanistan, launch new military excursions into Pakistan, take a harder line towards the Venezuelan and Bolivian governments (which have committed the unforgivable crime of attempting to move away from U.S. domination), and increase the U.S. government’s support to the criminal Israeli regime in its continued efforts to squash Palestinian and Lebanese resistance.
This militarism differs from McCain’s only in which countries will fall into the crosshairs. McCain, dubbed a “war hero” by his opponent and the capitalist press for being taken prison by Vietnamese forces after being shot down while flying over that country with the intention of dropping bombs on it for the 23rd time, will focus the U.S. war machine more on Iran, Sudan and Myanmar.
Of course on the question of war the candidates also have a lot in common—both with each other and with current president George W. Bush.
The Wall Street Journal, a mouthpiece of the capitalist class in the United States, recently admitted as much in an op-ed entitled “Don’t Expect a Big Change in U.S. Foreign Policy,” which candidly stated “Regardless of who wins in November, the current foreign policy will live on in the next White House.”
Both Obama and McCain seek to strengthen the ranks of the U.S. volunteer army for new military missions abroad. Both have publicly criticized college universities that no longer allow the military’s Reserved Officer Training Corps (ROTC) on their campuses. (The ROTC was driven off of many campuses as a result of popular protests against them during the U.S. invasion of Viet Nam.) Both call on young people in the United States to have a “willingness to sacrifice,” that is, to put their lives on the line for the financial gain of their rich capitalist rulers.
Obama the socialist?
In spite of the ridiculous claims of some of the more extreme rightwing talking heads that Obama is some sort of “socialist” who wants to take from the rich and give to the poor, he is fully dedicated to the capitalist system. As Left Business Observer put it in March, 2008, “big capital would have no problem with an Obama presidency… [Top hedge fund managers] think he’s the man to do their work,” and “They’re confident he wouldn’t undertake any renovations to the distribution of wealth.”
The mainstream media and supporters of both candidates are going all out to convince us of the importance of this “decisive election,” but as we will show, Barrack Obama and John McCain are simply two “new” versions of the same old crap.
The sham of “democracy” in the United States
Democracy means government of the people, but it is not the people that rule in the U.S.
The majority of the U.S. population has opposed the war in Iraq for years, yet the U.S. government continues to wage it unabated.
Millions turned out to vote for candidates from the Democratic Party in the 2006 midterm elections in hopes that they would work to end the war in Iraq only to have those same politicians continue to authorize it once in office.
If there were truly a “government of the people” in the United States, the war in Iraq would have ended long ago and public funds would be used on things like education and healthcare instead of bombs and corporate handouts.
Two parties, one master
In our society the population is, for the most part, divided into two camps: the toiling masses that have to work to survive and the rich capitalist minority that profits from their work. It is that capitalist elite which rules–by virtue of its control of all the factories, transportation and distribution networks, etc.—and the politics of the country reflect that.
Every president since 1853 has belonged to either the Democratic or Republican Party.
Both the Democrats and the Republicans represent the same ruling capitalist elite. Both parties receive their major funding from the same corporations and banks. Wal-Mart gives nearly the same amount of money to the Democratic Party as it does the Republican Party. Pfizer and AT&T do the same. Other corporations, like Home Depot and AFLAC, give a little more to the Democrats, but still make sure to donate substantially to the Republicans.
The list goes on and on.
As the saying goes, he who pays the piper calls the tune.
Because both Obama and McCain represent the same group of people, their policies are fundamentally the same. Any differences between them are primarily strategic. In other words, they differ only in what they think is the best way for the capitalists to rule.
Minor differences, major similarities
Even on issues of strategy, Obama and McCain have very few differences.
In early October, both Senators voted in for the widely unpopular Wall Street “bailout,” doing their parts in the government’s move to hand over at least $700 billion in federal funds to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, which he will distribute to the very banks and financial institutions that helped create the very financial crisis the “bailout” is supposed to help resolve. Obama and McCain’s votes also helped secure $150 billion in tax cuts to businesses and the wealthy. When asked who they would choose to serve as Treasury Secretary were they to become president, both candidates have suggested billionaire investor Warren Buffet, an iconic member of the capitalist class they serve.
Both candidates support anti-democratic legislation such as the USA PATRIOT Act and government spying on U.S. citizens.
On the issue of war, the candidates have some differences—though not of the kind you may imagine.
For the last several years, a key criticism of George W. Bush by many Democrats has been that he tied down troops in Iraq that could have been better used elsewhere. The Democrats aren’t against war, they just think that Bush decided to wage it in the wrong place.
Obama subscribes to this outlook wholeheartedly. While posing as an “anti-war” candidate in order to “rein in” the tens of millions of people in the United States who oppose the war in Iraq, Obama actually plans to expand the massive U.S. war machine.
Colin Kahl, Obama’s top adviser on Iraq, recently penned a report for the imperialist think tank Center for a New American Security in which he stated that in Iraq, “the U.S. should aim to transition to a sustainable over-watch posture (of perhaps 60,000-80,000 forces) by the end of 2010.”
Richard Danzig, Obama’s chief national security advisor, recently told the press that if elected, Obama would massively increase U.S.. military spending (which is already equal to the military budgets of all the other countries in the world combined) before saying that Bush’s Pentagon chief, Robert Gates, would make an “even better [chief] in an Obama administration.”
Obama chose Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former National Security Advisor under President Jimmy Carter who engineered the “Carter Doctrine” which stated that the U.S. would use force to secure oil in the Persian Gulf, to be his foreign policy advisor.
Obama’s running mate, Senator Joseph Biden, elaborated on he and Obama’s militarist ambitions during the October 2, 2008, vice-presidential debates, promising to step up the war in Afghanistan, launch new military excursions into Pakistan, take a harder line towards the Venezuelan and Bolivian governments (which have committed the unforgivable crime of attempting to move away from U.S. domination), and increase the U.S. government’s support to the criminal Israeli regime in its continued efforts to squash Palestinian and Lebanese resistance.
This militarism differs from McCain’s only in which countries will fall into the crosshairs. McCain, dubbed a “war hero” by his opponent and the capitalist press for being taken prison by Vietnamese forces after being shot down while flying over that country with the intention of dropping bombs on it for the 23rd time, will focus the U.S. war machine more on Iran, Sudan and Myanmar.
Of course on the question of war the candidates also have a lot in common—both with each other and with current president George W. Bush.
The Wall Street Journal, a mouthpiece of the capitalist class in the United States, recently admitted as much in an op-ed entitled “Don’t Expect a Big Change in U.S. Foreign Policy,” which candidly stated “Regardless of who wins in November, the current foreign policy will live on in the next White House.”
Both Obama and McCain seek to strengthen the ranks of the U.S. volunteer army for new military missions abroad. Both have publicly criticized college universities that no longer allow the military’s Reserved Officer Training Corps (ROTC) on their campuses. (The ROTC was driven off of many campuses as a result of popular protests against them during the U.S. invasion of Viet Nam.) Both call on young people in the United States to have a “willingness to sacrifice,” that is, to put their lives on the line for the financial gain of their rich capitalist rulers.
Obama the socialist?
In spite of the ridiculous claims of some of the more extreme rightwing talking heads that Obama is some sort of “socialist” who wants to take from the rich and give to the poor, he is fully dedicated to the capitalist system. As Left Business Observer put it in March, 2008, “big capital would have no problem with an Obama presidency… [Top hedge fund managers] think he’s the man to do their work,” and “They’re confident he wouldn’t undertake any renovations to the distribution of wealth.”
