Do you feel that your vote matters?
Yes, every time I go to the voting poll.
8.5%
4
Yes, I am rich.
6.4%
3
No, even though I do vote.
48.9%
23
No, I don't vote.
36.2%
17
47 votes
Angelorum said: Shiratori99 said: And who rules over the oligarchs? That probably explains why we've gone on massive escapades around the world which have brought us absolutely nothing. Oh it has brought you something, it's brought massive riches to the already mega-rich, and a lifetime of hatred of the US which'll take at least 50 years to disappear (and that's depending on the US doing nothing until that time, which isn't likely). You have to wonder, as the rest of the world increases in life conditions, when the US won't be able to take as much of the world's resources as they are doing now, just how far will they go to keep the privilege they have now. I expect more wars started by them under false pretenses. |
| "If you love someone Follow your heart Cause love comes once If you’re lucky enough" |
StopDropAndBowl said: You REALLY misrepresented the report. I agree with the conclusion though. This isn't a Republic anymore. It's a democratic oligarchy. Not because of "money in politics" but because the average citizen is fine with the federal government (with either party in control) breaking the rules and laws and getting away with it. I fail to see how any of the ensuing examples given are actually relevant to the incentive structure of government that drives the oligarchy. Even if we restricted federal powers back to pre-Roosevelt era levels, without ever getting around to addressing the issue of special interest groups, politicians are still going to enact legislation that greatly favors the rich over their own constituents; the only difference is they would limit the scope of their legislation based on new restrictions, which might lessen the problem somewhat, but they're still not going to do anything that's actually in our interest when the majority of their checks are still being written by lobbyists. The incentive structure is still fundamentally built to favor the most wealthy. I do agree that overstretching authority is another issue that needs to be tackled, but it's not really relevant to this issue and doesn't attack the heart of the problem. I don't know when bribery became known as "freedom of speech" but I think we need to let this notion go and recognize that it undermines the point of democracy. This should be an issue that both liberals and conservatives can agree on. |
OmegaSietsApr 21, 2014 3:58 PM
kingcity20 said: Oh for the love of -_- nvm gotta love MAL |
StopDropAndBowl said: It didn't start with Reagan. It didn't start at any one time, but if you want to point out it's conception and birthplace, that would be the original Roosevelt administration and the second Roosevelt administration. I attack Reagan; and so in turn, you attack FDR? LOL; but fair enough. When an economy is down, what do you do? You put people to work. That's exactly what FDR did. He took government power and put people to jobs -- in ways that private industry at the time could not. StopDropAndBowl said: it all really goes back to the antitrust movement and the way both Roosevelt's manipulated the press and media surrounding themselves to create a fake image of the President and his mission. They practically told big business and the rich to "F*ck off" and try not acting like they have government power. |
| Click on this. I dare you. | MAL Fantasy Football League | Currently Watching List RWBY Club. RWBY is anime. Deal with it. |
MiniSiets said: I fail to see how any of the ensuing examples given are actually relevant to the incentive structure of government that drives the oligarchy. What is the issue? If the issue is "money in politics" than that's an asinine problem without a solution. If the problem is a government that does not act in the best interests of the people, then the solution is to LIMIT their power, not try (and inevitably fail) to limit the power of special interests. |
| Let's go bowling. |
KyuuAL said: When an economy is down, what do you do? You put people to work. That's exactly what FDR did. He took government power and put people to jobs -- in ways that private industry at the time could not. When the economy is down, you let it rebound. Private business wasn't given the chance to do what they had done in every other recession the country had yet seen: fix the problem themselves. Government intervention worsened and prolonged the Depression. They did not help it. |
| Let's go bowling. |
StopDropAndBowl said: What is the issue? If the issue is "money in politics" than that's an asinine problem without a solution. There is a solution, just not one that'll ever get implemented because both parties are already controlled that none of them would ever write a bill or it able to get pasted because there masters dont want that :| |
| "If you love someone Follow your heart Cause love comes once If you’re lucky enough" |
Nicole said: StopDropAndBowl said: What is the issue? If the issue is "money in politics" than that's an asinine problem without a solution. There is a solution, just not one that'll ever get implemented because both parties are already controlled that none of them would ever write a bill or it able to get pasted because there masters dont want that :| Which in effect means that there is no solution. If the solution isn't viable, then it's not a solution. |
| Let's go bowling. |
StopDropAndBowl said: KyuuAL said: When an economy is down, what do you do? You put people to work. That's exactly what FDR did. He took government power and put people to jobs -- in ways that private industry at the time could not. When the economy is down, you let it rebound. Private business wasn't given the chance to do what they had done in every other recession the country had yet seen: fix the problem themselves. Government intervention worsened and prolonged the Depression. They did not help it. Um, when the economy is down -- private business reacts by making cuts and hoarding all of their earnings. Furthermore, private business has absolutely no concern for the public good. The country itself could go down. All that matters to them is their own profit line. To counter that, government has to spend and produce work. The best method involves infrastructure projects, which end up benefiting everybody. That's exactly what FDR did with the formation of the Tennessee Valley Authority, among others. The result: many common Joe's with money in their pocket to spend back into the economy for basic needs and other things. |
| Click on this. I dare you. | MAL Fantasy Football League | Currently Watching List RWBY Club. RWBY is anime. Deal with it. |
StopDropAndBowl said: What is the issue? If the issue is "money in politics" than that's an asinine problem without a solution. There is a solution; using a national convention as permitted under Article V of the constitution to pass an amendment removing money's influence from politics. National conventions allow us to bypass congress and the senate, which obviously aren't going to pass legislation that would undermine their own interests. There is a group working on this that has already passed resolutions in several states. They just need to reach a 2/3 majority. You say that this is an "asinine problem without a solution" but it's neither asinine nor without a viable solution. StopDropAndBowl said: If the problem is a government that does not act in the best interests of the people, then the solution is to LIMIT their power, not try (and inevitably fail) to limit the power of special interests. When the reason they're not acting in our best interest is specifically because of the special interest groups, it makes far more sense to target the problem directly rather than indirectly. The point of a democracy is that it's supposed to represent its constituents. If the government is not representing you, then you should enact changes that address that discrepancy, not just strip back some power while still leaving the incentive structure fundamentally anti-democratic. That might leave them with less ways to screw us, but they're still not working for us either way. |
OmegaSietsApr 23, 2014 4:44 PM
kingcity20 said: Oh for the love of -_- nvm gotta love MAL |
| 1. Passing an amendment using that method is so unlikely as to be effectively impossible. There's a reason that it's never happened before, and to be honest, no one even knows the process with which to do it. 2. What exactly do you propose to do to remove money's influence to politics? Publicly funded campaigns? Well that takes care of like... 1% of the problem. The big problem is the politicians who go from politics into high-paying consultant positions for special interests and then go right back into politics. However, if you make it illegal for politicians to work in the private sector ever again after being a politician... well, that is both unfair and unrealistic. Any solution I've ever heard to this "problem" is usually either 1) impossible to implement, or 2) limits freedom to such a degree as to be a bigger problem than the one it purports to solve. The real problem is that government has the power to affect our lives to such a degree as to actually become a problem. The problem is not special interests. Special interests wouldn't have a reason to exist at the level that they do now if the government couldn't give them the favors it does. No one would spend millions of dollars on a politician who doesn't have the power to do anything for them. So instead of waging a war against people spending money, just limit the damn government's power. The government shouldn't be 100% democratic anyway. If the majority of the population wants slavery, the government should kindly tell them to fuck off. I don't want the government "working for me" just like I don't want any other stranger poking his way into my life to "help me". I want the government to stay the hell out of my way. Um, when the economy is down -- private business reacts by making cuts and hoarding all of their earnings. Furthermore, private business has absolutely no concern for the public good. The country itself could go down. All that matters to them is their own profit line. Ever heard of the 1920-1921 Recession? Business bounced back with little to no governmental involvement. Ever heard of Carnegie and Rockefeller? They gave more to charity than any other two human beings ever have. The government cannot fix the problem, ever. They can only hurt it. |
| Let's go bowling. |
StopDropAndBowl said: Um, when the economy is down -- private business reacts by making cuts and hoarding all of their earnings. Furthermore, private business has absolutely no concern for the public good. The country itself could go down. All that matters to them is their own profit line. Ever heard of the 1920-1921 Recession? Business bounced back with little to no governmental involvement. Ever heard of Carnegie and Rockefeller? They gave more to charity than any other two human beings ever have. The government cannot fix the problem, ever. They can only hurt it. And how do they hurt it? Just... how? Explain the process? The Great Depression was given years on end to resolve itself with no end in sight in the US, by the way; the entirety of Hoover's administration was devoted to "let the market handle it and stay away in case it explodes on me", so your logic is clearly faulty somehow. The market never has been, nor ever will, be a functioning system without government (or some other sort of regulating power) intervention, or else it collapses on itself due to lack of moral integrity. Just look at Enron or the '07 mortgage crisis for more recent examples. |
Sweet_Love said: And how do they hurt it? Just... how? Explain the process? The Great Depression was given years on end to resolve itself with no end in sight in the US, by the way; the entirety of Hoover's administration was devoted to "let the market handle it and stay away in case it explodes on me", so your logic is clearly faulty somehow. Governments historically respond to recessions and set-backs by either instituting tariffs, printing money, or raising spending and taxes. Those all restrict economic growth and hurt the recovery. And the Hoover administration was anything BUT a "laissez faire" administration. That's a myth, propagated largely by pro-government interventionists. He raised taxes, sometimes by over 100%. He invested heavily in public works projects (ever heard of the Hoover dam?). He increased farm subsidies substantially, and he signed the Smoot-Hawley trade bill, which was a record-high tariff that restricted economic trade in a time of already stunted trade. He used his political power to force businesses to keep their wages and prices artificially high, thus even further restricting trade at the worst possible time, when the world needed more trade, not less. He pushed for heavier regulation on the stock-market, thus becoming known (in his day) as a vicious enemy of the stock-market. Hoover was, in fact, one of the original proponents of government intervention in the economy, and was more responsible for the country's acceptance of the New Deal (by virtue of precedent) than anyone, including FDR: Hoover's Attack on Laissez-Faire: https://mises.org/daily/2902 http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/HooversEconomicPolicies.html You assume that Hoover was a "do nothing" President, a fact that almost no historian will agree upon anymore. You assume this because FDR created that myth and image of Hoover during his own disastrous presidency. In actuality, Hoover had his own New Deal, and it was the model for FDR's own New Deal. Hoover is the biggest strawman that the left ever conceived, and it is most ironic, because history had shown quite clearly that a "do nothing" approach worked: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States Dozens of recessions, depressions, and Panics before the interventionist policies of Hoover, and absolutely none of them had the severity or length of the Great Depression, and contrary to popular economic though, exactly none of them caused a death spiral in the economy. Private business, as it always does, bounced back. If Hoover had been what you suggest, a "do nothing" President, then we probably wouldn't ever have had a "Great" Depression. We'd have had a normal depression of a normal length and normal severity. No other recession or depression has ever seen such a massive increase in the scope and scale of the government's control, and it is no coincidence that no other depression or recession has ever lasted as long, or had such severe consequences. The market never has been, nor ever will, be a functioning system without government (or some other sort of regulating power) intervention, or else it collapses on itself due to lack of moral integrity. Just look at Enron or the '07 mortgage crisis for more recent examples. We did not have anything even closely resembling a deregulated state in '07. We have not had anything close to a deregulated state since the Roaring Twenties. This is another myth, a strawman with little to no actual evidence. |
| Let's go bowling. |
StopDropAndBowl said: Passing an amendment using that method is so unlikely as to be effectively impossible. There's a reason that it's never happened before, ...Because the 17th amendment got pre-empted by congress when they saw that we were only a couple states away from forcing it with a convention anyway? A national convention can just as much be used as a threat to get what we want; we don't even necessarily have to use it. Obviously that doesn't mean it's going to be easy either way, but it's sure as hell a more realistic solution than some nebulous fix to the education system or any proposal that relies on going through a corrupt congress for that matter. StopDropAndBowl said: What exactly do you propose to do to remove money's influence to politics? Publicly funded campaigns? Well that takes care of like... 1% of the problem. The big problem is the politicians who go from politics into high-paying consultant positions for special interests and then go right back into politics. I'd say it's far more than "1% of the problem". When you take away a politician's ability to win elections by selling out to special interests, that also means that they're less likely to sell out on their way out of office. That said, the proposed amendment is a work-in-progress and would encompass a bit more than just campaign finance reform. I do remember some talk of proposals to address the problem you raise here, though I can't remember specifics, but certainly none of them were as extreme as banning all private sector jobs for politicians. Also your wiki article doesn't even seem to support your own argument here... "There have been as many as 47 recessions in the United States since 1790 [. . .] The average duration of the 11 recessions between 1945 and 2001 is 10 months, compared to 18 months for recessions between 1919 and 1945, and 22 months for recessions from 1854 to 1919." I did some quick calculations with that as well. 11 recessions over the course of 56 years (1945-2001) averages out to about ~1.96 recessions every 10 years. 35 recessions over the course of 154 years (1790-1944) averages out to about ~2.27 recessions every 10 years. So not only did recessions last longer pre-Roosevelt administration, but they were also more frequent. As always correlation doesn't equal causation, so this doesn't necessarily mean that Roosevelt is to thank for these statistics, but this certainly doesn't support the notion that Roosevelt--and by extension more government involvement in the markets--is what led to everything going wrong. |
kingcity20 said: Oh for the love of -_- nvm gotta love MAL |
MiniSiets said: I'd say it's far more than "1% of the problem". When you take away a politician's ability to win elections by selling out to special interests, that also means that they're less likely to sell out on their way out of office. I would say on this point I would disagree before this Law be it the US or anywhere else for that matter, the corporates would just have someone donate the money as a public donation. For Example If you want a political leader to scratch your computer firms back, give money in the hands of a stock holder or manager in the interest of policital "fairness". |
RedArmyShogun said: MiniSiets said: I'd say it's far more than "1% of the problem". When you take away a politician's ability to win elections by selling out to special interests, that also means that they're less likely to sell out on their way out of office. I would say on this point I would disagree before this Law be it the US or anywhere else for that matter, the corporates would just have someone donate the money as a public donation. For Example If you want a political leader to scratch your computer firms back, give money in the hands of a stock holder or manager in the interest of policital "fairness". When we talk about public financing of political campaigns, that doesn't mean that all donations must be made transparent, it means that a politician would no longer be allowed to use donations for their campaign at all. Instead they would be given a fixed amount funded by tax money to spend on the campaign. So if any such donation were found and was being spent on their campaign, it would be illegal under the new system. You have to understand that the purpose of this change is not so much about preventing bribes as it is about making bribes irrelevant to achieving victory in an election race; since both politicians would have the same amount of money to spend on their campaigns, the one with the most money can't just drown their competition out with endless misleading attack ads like what would happen in the past. You can donate money to someone but they can't use that money as part of their campaign budget. |
kingcity20 said: Oh for the love of -_- nvm gotta love MAL |
MiniSiets said: Obviously that doesn't mean it's going to be easy either way, but it's sure as hell a more realistic solution than some nebulous fix to the education system or any proposal that relies on going through a corrupt congress for that matter. So getting 2/3s of the state legislatures to call a convention, and then having to get 3/4s of them to agree on one, set amendment is easier than passing some reforms through Congress to limit their power? I'd say it's far more than "1% of the problem". When you take away a politician's ability to win elections by selling out to special interests, that also means that they're less likely to sell out on their way out of office Winning the election isn't that important. The incumbent already has a huge advantage. And the real driving factor here is the "enter politics relatively poor, leave a multimillionaire" problem that has nothing to do with election financing and has everything to do with crony capitalism where politicians receive cushy jobs and speaking engagements for passing the right bills and playing the right field. Not to mention that by passing your campaign finance reform, you would have 1) limited the free speech of the people, and 2) handed over the power of choice to the very government that you admit is corrupt. You honestly think there won't be abuses where one candidate gets no, or less funding? No smaller piece of the pie? And you think that I, with my taxes, should have to support the campaign of a politician who is morally, philosophically, and politically opposed to myself? Not to mention that this won't solve the actual problem, so we'll have traded away our own freedom and created a whole host of new problems to fix something that isn't even a real problem. That said, the proposed amendment is a work-in-progress and would encompass a bit more than just campaign finance reform. I do remember some talk of proposals to address the problem you raise here, though I can't remember specifics, but certainly none of them were as extreme as banning all private sector jobs for politicians. Anything less will be useless. Anything so extreme will be such a heavy burden that it is ridiculous to suggest. You're pushing for the wrong reforms here. So not only did recessions last longer pre-Roosevelt administration, but they were also more frequent. As always correlation doesn't equal causation, so this doesn't necessarily mean that Roosevelt is to thank for these statistics, but this certainly doesn't support the notion that Roosevelt--and by extension more government involvement in the markets--is what led to everything going wrong. Well, for one, the original statement that I was arguing against was that the free-market CANNOT deal with recessions and Panics on it's own, that it NEEDS government intervention or it will enter a death spiral. The point of the wikipedia article was to show, in part, that this is untrue. The free market has and will correct itself. The recessions themselves were usually not so severe as they are now, nor has Roosevelt's own economic policy been utilized in every recession since the Great Depression. We're being far too general if we attach all recessions post-Roosevelt to one philosophy and all recessions pre-Roosevelt to another. We can, however, take the one recession where the MOST government control was applied and compare it to those where NO government action (beyond cutting taxes) was applied and compare them. And the comparison suggests that the one where the MOST government control was applied most liberally was the one that was the most severe and lasted the longest and had the greatest harm on the populace. Also, your methodology here is flawed. You're counting all recessions as one and you're counting the Great Depression and it's subsequent recessions (of which there were 3) as pre-Roosevelt. Not to mention that before 1920, recessions were not really recorded, so our data, especially for the old recessions, is incomplete and often unreliable. One recession does not necessarily equal another. To be honest, I'm somewhat guilty of this myself. To really be accurate, we'd have to pick out two, very similar crisis and track the recovery in detail. Perhaps I'll do this later, but not now. Also, there is a more important point to consider. Even if we can be assured that MORE government control evens out the economy and lessens the prevalence of downturns (this is not proven), it comes at a cost. More government control necessarily means less freedom, and necessarily means less ability to apply personal and corporate solutions to the problems that arise during downturns. I would argue that any small benefit government control may have (I do not believe it has many, if any at all), would be far outweighed by the massive amounts of freedom and control that the citizen must then necessarily cede to the federal government. For all of human history, the standard of living has never seen a higher growth than during the Industrial Revolution; and the Industrial Revolution was driven entirely by businessmen and entrepreneurs who were largely free of government interference and control. |
| Let's go bowling. |
MiniSiets said: snip. Ah I see, in that case why give them money at all? Though you would have to go further than that in reforms given how much elections cost, then again in my ideal world wouldn't have political parties in the first place :/ |
| The US has been controlled by elites since the very beginning. Why do you think only white male land owners were allowed to vote? lol Democracy is a sham, but I doubt that communism is any better. I don't think we as humans will ever understand the society we live in. Therefore, it is almost impossible to be controlled. |
yung-heezy said: The US has been controlled by elites since the very beginning[...] yung-heezy said: [...]Therefore, it is almost impossible to be controlled. |
| [size=200]MAL AVATAR SYSTEM BLOWS |
DerpHole said: yung-heezy said: The US has been controlled by elites since the very beginning[...] yung-heezy said: [...]Therefore, it is almost impossible to be controlled. I meant to say "The US has been influenced by elites since the very beginning" |
yung-heezy said: DerpHole said: yung-heezy said: The US has been controlled by elites since the very beginning[...] yung-heezy said: [...]Therefore, it is almost impossible to be controlled. I meant to say "The US has been influenced by elites since the very beginning" "Influence" is significantly different than "control". Sadly, things are headed towards "control". |
| Click on this. I dare you. | MAL Fantasy Football League | Currently Watching List RWBY Club. RWBY is anime. Deal with it. |
| I blame the income tax. Rich people pay more taxes than the poor people. Taxes provide the government money. Therefore, the government favors the rich and ignores the poor (at least the quiet ones). Our tax system is whack. |
| My two cents: - The government was designed from the begining by th wealthy- washington, jefferson, adams, franklin. All of them where wealthy, and the government was organized to serve both the people and the wealthy. Governments basic purpose is to protect peoples rights to property, justice, and life. That includes the property of the wealthy. Too many people want to strip the wealthy of their money and assets, "share the wealth", but many wealthy earned their places as leadership and as bright minds. My point being that the government must both serve in the interests of the many mid and lower class, but also of the wealthy few. I draw the line when it becomes a bias like socialism or pandering of any class group- where its only to kiss up one group or the other to get the vote or the benefits. As for voting- you cant honestly expect your vote to matter in the grand scale, being one of millions equates your opinion to being like a grain of sand in a desert, but if you don't vote, your opinion would be of little consequence to anyone. |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |