ADVERTISEMENT

Oligarchy

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.

I have this insane theory that corporations aren't people, and money isn't speech.
 
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.
i'm not necessarily against them...but i don't think they'll automatically fix many problems either

with defined term limits, we'd end up with a lot of lame duck rep/senators that have vested interest in lining up their next gig
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Here_4_a_Day
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.
It's probably too late for all of this. The people who now have outsized influence on who gets elected aren't interested in giving up that influence. A conservative Supreme Court created this situation with Citizens United. It would take a liberal Supreme Court to reverse it and that's just not in the cards.
 
The other counter is that we have term limits…called elections.

To be clear, I don’t agree with that.
True, and as I have said, 'politics' should not be viewed as a dirty word, and just maybe we might even need a little more of it. At a certain level - whether it be this slew of recent appointments clause cases, or the rapidly emerging Loper Bright caselaw, or the 'major questions' doctrine - I think that's actually a message that the Court is trying to send.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sober_teacher
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.

Agreed, but again, I was talking worldwide, throughout history. I get why the discussion is based on the US, rightfully so.

I would say in the past that the ultra rich just bought the US/Worldwide politicians illegally.
 
Last edited:
Not at this level. This is an open and transparent buying of the nation. Next four years won't be about reducing egg prices. It will be about making sure billionaires permanently control everything.

Aw shucks.....all the MAGA posters on here are wealthy. They already don't have to pay taxes. Too rich to get sick, and if they do, they don't get vaccinated to make sure they won't get medicated so never have to worry about healing. Armed to the teeth so anyone stepping on their property will be blasted into smithereens w/o warning. Vote to make sure every tax dollar toward education goes to private schools. You know, the poverty-stricken schools where money directed to them is not accounted for (thanks Kim for this genius gambit).

Yep. These poor rich bastards suffer terribly. Must be the fault of the Marxists.
 
Edb84sIXoAIK5IK.jpg:large
I keep repeating myself. EVERY other time in world history the wealth disparity has been this bad the poor killed all the rich and took their money.

If we don’t fix the problem, it will fix itself in the coming decades. Once the poor people realize that Trump and Musk and similar are exploiting them… it’ll get real ugly.
 
Ok, bear with me.....


I think I can provide a pretty good example of how "politicians" were able to make money while us peasants were literally blocked, by them, from doing so. Admittedly as part of this I have to admit to kind of being a POS.


If you remember, early in the Russia/Ukraine war the Russian ruble was down to NOTHING, like I made the joke "I'm thinking about just buying a shit ton to let my daughter play with"... so I looked into it... and we were blocked from buying it, we may still be. That made me go down a rabbit hole a little. I get why we were blocked, on paper, my investment would have been funding a Russian war effort ( see pos), but at the exact same time our "tax dollars" or items our tax dollars were spent on, were being shipped somewhere with the expectation that our contractors, whom the politicians have knowledge of, would profit from the rebuild or restock. So even though I could look at it and find a opportunity way above standard ROI, I was blocked out, and they were using "my money" to inevitably put money in their pockets.



That to me, when they took away my ability to invest in a market, was abuse of power or.whatever.

How do they get away with stuff like that?
 
The difference between Must/Vivek and Soros, is that Soros has been doing it for years.
The following additional persons did not sit on the political sidelines in the course of US history:

-Jeff Bezos
-Bill Gates
-Henry Ford
-John Rockefeller
-J.P. Morgan
-Andrew Mellon
-Andrew Carnegie
-Jay Gould
-Cornelius Vanderbilt
-Steven Girard
 
I keep repeating myself. EVERY other time in world history the wealth disparity has been this bad the poor killed all the rich and took their money.

If we don’t fix the problem, it will fix itself in the coming decades. Once the poor people realize that Trump and Musk and similar are exploiting them… it’ll get real ugly.

You aren't the only one.
 
Basically, some historians note that the American revolution was to get us out from under the shackles of King George and England and by 1880, just 100 years, the Guilded Age came to the fore with the Robber Barons and extremely rich who turned the workers into serfs. Now we have the really rich since Reagan who have taken over the govt by telling politicians how to craft legislation to cut their taxes and let them monopolize industries to make huge wealth.
And you’ve been reduced to a serf …..with a house…….one or more cars……a computer…….a smart phone……a smart TV…… right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: WSC72
Ok, bear with me.....


I think I can provide a pretty good example of how "politicians" were able to make money while us peasants were literally blocked, by them, from doing so. Admittedly as part of this I have to admit to kind of being a POS.


If you remember, early in the Russia/Ukraine war the Russian ruble was down to NOTHING, like I made the joke "I'm thinking about just buying a shit ton to let my daughter play with"... so I looked into it... and we were blocked from buying it, we may still be. That made me go down a rabbit hole a little. I get why we were blocked, on paper, my investment would have been funding a Russian war effort ( see pos), but at the exact same time our "tax dollars" or items our tax dollars were spent on, were being shipped somewhere with the expectation that our contractors, whom the politicians have knowledge of, would profit from the rebuild or restock. So even though I could look at it and find a opportunity way above standard ROI, I was blocked out, and they were using "my money" to inevitably put money in their pockets.



That to me, when they took away my ability to invest in a market, was abuse of power or.whatever.

How do they get away with stuff like that?
My take on this would be that the politicians were more likely interested in the personal and political "upsides" of affirmative spending on defense and related contractors with whom they had political or personal interests, and that the currency sanctions (and foreclosing of that form of speculation to others) really were more about trying to gut or at least blunt russian global liquidity at a strategic/tactical level. While the two are certainly strategically coherent, I don't know that the currency sanctions really reinforce the upside of the affirmative spending "that" directly. Indeed, i suppose you could even argue that, if no sanctions existed and people could speculate in rubles, it would provide russia with greater liquidity that would necessitate even more affirmative (and self interested) defense spending to combat it.
 
My take on this would be that the politicians were more likely interested in the personal and political "upsides" of affirmative spending on defense and related contractors with whom they had political or personal interests, and that the currency sanctions (and foreclosing of that form of speculation to others) really were more about trying to gut or at least blunt russian global liquidity. While the two are certainly strategically coherent, I don't know that the currency sanctions really reinforce the upside of the affirmative spending "that" directly. Indeed, i suppose you could even argue that, if no sanctions existed and people could speculate in rubles, it would provide russia with greater liquidity that would necessitate even more affirmative (and self interested) defense spending to combat it.
At the cost of lives....


Rules for thee but not for me....


Much appreciated sir.
 
At the cost of lives....


Rules for thee but not for me....


Much appreciated sir.
honestly, i think the only thing that might have actually saved lives in ukraine, perhaps at the cost of some us lives, would have been if we had put some 'token' us force or advisors on the ground very early and very publicly in an attempt to modify the risk/reward invasion calculus Putin had to consider at the outset. I don't begrudge the Biden administration for taking the opposite 'de-escalation' approach - it was a reasonable, and ethical, call, that has worked out tragically. (And to be clear, my approach might well have worked out just as tragically or even more so.)
 
I think it’s worse than that.

Federal Reserve data indicates that as of Q4 2021, the top 1% of households in the United States held 30.9% of the country's wealth, while the bottom 50% held 2.6%.[7] From 1989 to 2019, wealth became increasingly concentrated in the top 1% and top 10% due in large part to corporate stock ownership concentration in those segments of the population; the bottom 50% own little if any corporate stock.[8]From an international perspective, the difference in the US median and mean wealth per adult is over 600%.[9] A 2011 study found that US citizens across the political spectrum dramatically underestimate the current level of wealth inequalityin the US, and would prefer a far more egalitarian distribution of wealth.[10]

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the wealth held by billionaires in the U.S. increased by 70%,[11] with 2020 marking the steepest increase in billionaires' share of wealth on record.[12]
what would a good wealth distribution chart for usa look like? for instance hypothetically how much wealth should top 1% hold, and how much should top 10% hold?
this question is directed to anyone.
 
honestly, i think the only thing that might have actually saved lives in ukraine, perhaps at the cost of some us lives, would have been if we had put some 'token' us force or advisors on the ground very early and very publicly in an attempt to modify the risk/reward invasion calculus Putin had to consider at the outset. I don't begrudge the Biden administration for taking the opposite 'de-escalation' approach - it was a reasonable, and ethical, call, that has worked out tragically. (And to be clear, my approach might well have worked out just as tragically or even more so.)
It was an option and to your point who knows how it would have went, we could be knee deep in ww3 if they would have gone that route though.


He had to make a choice and he chose the one he felt was less likely to kill Americans. I have no fault with him there, sometimes you just have to make a shitty decision.
 
The difference between Must/Vivek and Soros, is that Soros has been doing it for years.
It's interesting. The founders didn't say "ambition must be squelched." Rather, they said simply that "ambition must be made to counteract ambition." It's always so strange to me that modern neo-humanists seem to think that men are or can be angels, including when it comes to governance, when their reformation antecedents knew full well that was a pipe dream.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: goldmom
We’re laughing at the irony. Bernie the “democratic socialist” is worth about $4 million and owns two gigantic houses. Billionaires are just a little better at making money than ole Bernie.

Gigantic lake house

image.jpg


House so huge it had to be taken from a drone, to make it look more grandiose.

Sanders-Vermont-House.jpg


Granted he also has an apartment in DC. I bet it is the biggest apartment you can manage.

With his wife coming from money, his books, and his political career I would say those are pretty modest.
 
I keep repeating myself. EVERY other time in world history the wealth disparity has been this bad the poor killed all the rich and took their money.

If we don’t fix the problem, it will fix itself in the coming decades. Once the poor people realize that Trump and Musk and similar are exploiting them… it’ll get real ugly.
I Cant Wait Basketball Wives GIF by VH1
 
I keep repeating myself. EVERY other time in world history the wealth disparity has been this bad the poor killed all the rich and took their money.

If we don’t fix the problem, it will fix itself in the coming decades. Once the poor people realize that Trump and Musk and similar are exploiting them… it’ll get real ugly.
if most of the people are in desperate straits and have absolutely nothing to lose like in the french revolution setting that could certainly happen. but is america really populated mostly by poor people? do poor people in america have no access to resources from the state?

is it unreasonable to posit that wealth disparity is a problem only if most people have nothing and there is no economic "floor"?

also @Moral i know you are a thoughtful person as well and share @ping72 's viewpoint, so i would appreciate if you weigh in when you can. i am not suggesting things are great as is but revolution to me seems a bit much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WSC72
Gigantic lake house

image.jpg


House so huge it had to be taken from a drone, to make it look more grandiose.

Sanders-Vermont-House.jpg


Granted he also has an apartment in DC. I bet it is the biggest apartment you can manage.

With his wife coming from money, his books, and his political career I would say those are pretty modest.
575k, cash, no mortgage paper trail, that's impressive for someone only worth 4 million on a 2nd home.
 
  • Like
Reactions: goldmom
what would a good wealth distribution chart for usa look like? for instance hypothetically how much wealth should top 1% hold, and how much should top 10% hold?
this question is directed to anyone.
Wasn’t it back in the ‘80s where there was roughly a 100-1 ration for what a CEO made vs the lowest paid employee, or at least that was the goal?

I don’t object to the rich getting richer - we’d all love to have that problem? The issue is that most Americans don’t have those same opportunities that used to exist,or is at least much harder than it once was.
 
if most of the people are in desperate straits and have absolutely nothing to lose like in the french revolution setting that could certainly happen. but is america really populated mostly by poor people? do poor people in america have no access to resources from the state?

is it unreasonable to posit that wealth disparity is a problem only if most people have nothing and there is no economic "floor"?
The middle class is shrinking. Things aren't going to be getting better for those of us middle down. We're supposed to be good worker bees into our 70s now.
 
Wasn’t it back in the ‘80s where there was roughly a 100-1 ration for what a CEO made vs the lowest paid employee, or at least that was the goal?

I don’t object to the rich getting richer - we’d all love to have that problem? The issue is that most Americans don’t have those same opportunities that used to exist,or is at least much harder than it once was.
CEO pay has increased close to 1000% since 1980. Worker pay has increased 10%. So yeah, there's a helluva lot of ripping off of the American worker going on. Again, since Reagan and his BS trickle down. They lied and have laughed all the way to the bank.
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT