Oligarchy
- Thread starter ping72
- Start date
Stop with this stupid shit. Musk and Vivek are not unicorns. They exist and have a seat at the table. Soros didn't.
Just want to make sure I'm keeping an accurate score card here....
The people that were jerking themselves off for stockpiling 1.4 billion in 100 days, touting all the CEOs who were pro dem, and ran a campaign on millionaires who made their money due to genetics ( celebrities) now want to talk about getting the money out of politics.........
The people that were jerking themselves off for stockpiling 1.4 billion in 100 days, touting all the CEOs who were pro dem, and ran a campaign on millionaires who made their money due to genetics ( celebrities) now want to talk about getting the money out of politics.........
This has grown exponentially worse in the US and just the last few years.
I saw data just a day or two ago where during Covid the working class lost $2.7 billion in wealth. The richest Americans gained $2.9 billion in wealth. Coincidence?
I saw data just a day or two ago where during Covid the working class lost $2.7 billion in wealth. The richest Americans gained $2.9 billion in wealth. Coincidence?
He does. I would also guess whoever was telling Biden what to do the last 4 years also had an office in the White House.
Heck I’m not sure if Hunter had an office but he was part of White House meetings.
Plenty of undeserving people have an office at the White House and I’m guessing 90% of them don’t give a shit about anyone that doesn’t have money or power. While I agree it’s pathetic, it is the same thing every year.
Agree to disagree, I think some people are talking only the US, I was talking the world in general. Also, I agree it should be a concern, my only point was, it's not new.
Honest question: Do you like that corps or very wealthy people can buy/have influence in elections?
I don't want corps or wealthy Ds or Rs to be able to have influence. Get $$$ out so it's a more even playing field. This is also the reason only a small group of people can run and win elections. Playing field needs to be leveled out to see change.
No it’s not, dumbass, but go hide in your basement.
No.
Not at all, I wish they would take the vast majority of the money out of it and make it a job people want because they want to be the president not because it gives them advanced notice on ways to make money.
The system was built for it... which allows it. SCOTUS allowed big money... this allows it. People vote for a party regardless of qualifications and who's funding their campaign... which allows it.
Bernie has been saying this for decades at this point.
Agreed... but those in power to include rich folks and big corporations aren't going to give up control without a fight.
I agree. And I'm afraid they have so much power now that fight would be ugly.
It has been said as a joke for years but if Politicians had to wear sponsorships we the people would likely be sick.
You know it's easy and sounds nice to everyone to say things about wanting to take money out of politics, but honestly, I'm not entirely sure what that even means. I suppose at one extreme you could go to a fully publicly financed electoral process, with a very defined schedule, but that begs some hard questions: how much financing, where does it come from, who gets to draw from the well, and how much do they get to draw? Somewhere in the middle I suppose are just tighter contribution limits, particularly on pacs that are not in fact the campaign. But when it comes to supporting issue advocacy organizations, I'm honestly not sure how you do that. And if you can't do that, well, you got yourself one giant loophole.
And in any event, even assuming you did "take the money out of it" in some way, is it actually realistic to expect that "access" to elected officials will operate that much differently than it does now? If I'm an elected official, considering some bill that is going to regulate something at the federal level, if i'm actually living in the entirely hypothetical hyper-rational world that people dream about, who do I want to talk to about that bill? The "rational" answer is actually probably just as much "the regulated" as it is "the people who want to regulate something." Because like it or not, the reality is that 'the regulated' actually do tend to know a little more about the practical ramifications of regulation. Beyond that, the other people I'll want to talk to are the people who tend to employ a lot of people or conduct of commerce within my district, which again, is the same people who they tend to be talking to now.
Last edited:
Except his donors are ok with paying taxes and not having complete control
Your discussion of the regulated having a better working knowledge than those attempting to regulated hits home.
-2A supporter.
I think for me, when I say "take the money out" I mean actually looking into how these people who make hundreds of thousands a year due worth tens of millions. There has to be some level of "insider trading/knowledge" being broken there ( both sides do it) that puts being a politician at a much higher net income "value" ( if you will) than a public sector job.
Donald Trump was against Tik Tok for four years.
He met with Jeff Yass and Immediately changed his tune. Jeff Yass started buying what would become DJT stock and served as market maker in the reverse takeover.
He met with Jeff Yass and Immediately changed his tune. Jeff Yass started buying what would become DJT stock and served as market maker in the reverse takeover.
it's always hard striking that balance in terms of regulation. but the dirty little secret is, it's actually relatively uncommon that the regulated are absolutely dead set against ANY regulation, and more common that people will deal with incrementalism. but that's not dramatic enough to win elections, i suppose.
no doubt there is a problem with people going into government and coming out richer. a big problem. I think it goes beyond mere insider trading, and extends as well to business opportunities being made available (even if at FMV). I think term limits are one piece of the solution, and I also think a hard look at senior hill staff is worthwhile.
I guess I don't understand the argument AGAINST term limits.
"Career politician" shouldn't exist.
oh it's always been about some bullshit involving the "loss of expertise" and "ability to know what those sneaky agencies are doing" that comes with seniority, which of course is completely laughable.
In my opinion, it's gotten much worse since the Citizens United ruling.
It's not just Trump that's responsible, although he'll be fast tracking things. Democrats aren't doing anything to fix this either, unfortunately. They pay lip service I guess.
Wage Theft vs. Other Forms of Theft in the U.S. | Tompkins County Workers' Center
We have way too many people who come to us @ the Tompkins County Workers’ Center have been the victim of Wage Theft. This image graphically lays out the monetary costs, on a national level, of Wage Theft as compared to the combination of ALL: 1) burglaries; 2) robberies; 3) larcenies; and 4)...
www.tcworkerscenter.org
Weird how so many focus on looters but NEVER mention wage theft.
It probably did, but I don't think there's that much magic to how they did so. Most great leaps forward in American economic history arise out of a simple thing: distribution. Of goods, of services, of ideas. Whether it be via shipping, railroads, the interstate highway system, or the internet. Covid set the conditions to do so, whether it be at home delivery logistics, online communication platforms, or even real estate redevelopment (think live-work companies or urban 'bike friendly' projects to redevelop downtowns in light of more limited demand).
And tons of evidence to support the opposite.
Mind if I ask a side bar that is slightly related I would love your 2 cents on?
The wealthiest have always exerted tremendous political influence. Campaign finance laws to a great extent prevented the richest among us from using their wealth to directly manipulate federal elections within the U.S. political system. Citizens United removed all of those barriers in 2010. They are now able to legally and openly buy politicians.
The other counter is that we have term limits…called elections.
To be clear, I don’t agree with that.
Why? What was so amazing about 16-20, his first term?
I'd start with eliminating PACS, Super PACS and Citizens United. Go back to basics on contribution limits to higher office especially congressional and presidential candidates. Then, go back to public funding of these elections so all candidates had the same pool of money and would have to run on a platform vs trying to just outspend/buy elections.
Then, set term limits for congress. Eliminate gerrymandering by having districts set up similar to how Iowa does things to better level the playing field and force representatives to run on a platform vs just using money or party affiliation.
Latest posts
-
-
POLL: What Grade Would You Give Iowa's Transfer Portal Work So Far?
- Latest: WaterlooChazz
-
-
