A much, much shorter list would be what wasn't?!Why? What was so amazing about 16-20, his first term?
A much, much shorter list would be what wasn't?!Why? What was so amazing about 16-20, his first term?
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'm not necessarily against them...but i don't think they'll automatically fix many problems eitheroh 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.
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.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.
Tell it to the poors because those with the money like the status quo.I have this insane theory that corporations aren't people, and money isn't speech.
sure.Mind if I ask a side bar that is slightly related I would love your 2 cents on?
I would second that.The laugh is that anyone thinks Dems or MAGA is the solution.
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.The other counter is that we have term limits…called elections.
To be clear, I don’t agree with that.
Stop with this stupid shit. Musk and Vivek are not unicorns. They exist and have a seat at the table. Soros didn't.
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.
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.
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.
No. Eff all billionaires.My, it's always different when the shoe is on the leftist foot, isn't it?! >
6 Dem-supporting billionaires Biden didn't mention while calling out political 'oligarchy'
President Biden is warning Americans about the threat of an "ultra-wealthy" "oligarchy," but did not mention in his farewell speech the billionaires that have supported him in recent years.www.foxnews.com
Ok, bear with me.....sure.
The following additional persons did not sit on the political sidelines in the course of US history:The difference between Must/Vivek and Soros, is that Soros has been doing it for years.
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.To the posters that ‘laugh’ at the post, what’s so funny? Is it not true what Sanders is saying?
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.
And you’ve been reduced to a serf …..with a house…….one or more cars……a computer…….a smart phone……a smart TV…… right?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.
Jealous much? How do you feel about millionaires, little red comrade?No. Eff all billionaires.
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.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?
At the cost of lives....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.
I suppose that explains the fact that he’s never had a private sector job.Bernie has been saying this for decades at this point.
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.)At the cost of lives....
Rules for thee but not for me....
Much appreciated sir.
You may be right, but Biden warning us about Oligarchs? Remind me who Biden gave the Medal of Freedom to just recently?
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?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]
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.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.)
Messi isn't an oligarch, he's goat.
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.The difference between Must/Vivek and Soros, is that Soros has been doing it for years.
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.
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.
Coulda been worse. Coulda been gelded.Gilded?
Guilded?
Hmm.
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?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.
575k, cash, no mortgage paper trail, that's impressive for someone only worth 4 million on a 2nd home.Gigantic lake house
House so huge it had to be taken from a drone, to make it look more grandiose.
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.
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?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.
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.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"?
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.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.
I have this insane theory that corporations aren't people, and money isn't speech.