- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Princeton study: U.S. is an oligarchy
Posted on 4/16/14 at 11:23 am to PrimeTime Money
Posted on 4/16/14 at 11:23 am to PrimeTime Money
quote:
The US government does not represent the interests of the majority of the country's citizens,
I am actually pretty glad about that. I have met the "average" American. the average ain't that great.
quote:
Researchers concluded that US government policies rarely align with the the preferences of the majority of Americans,
I think a "representative republic" is better than a straight democracy.
Now, I despise the asshats. But, I am afraid of just how pathetic we would be IF the "policies aligned with the majority".
Posted on 4/16/14 at 11:28 am to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
I think a "representative republic" is better than a straight democracy.
Now, I despise the asshats. But, I am afraid of just how pathetic we would be IF the "policies aligned with the majority".
Exactly. You don't let majority rule dictate how to build a airplane, where to build a cancer research center or what movies to produce. You leave that to industry experts and market forces.
Straight majority rule would be a fricking disaster.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 11:35 am to Rohan2Reed
quote:
Exactly. You don't let majority rule dictate how to build a airplane, where to build a cancer research center or what movies to produce. You leave that to industry experts and market forces.
I'm guessing you consider yourself one of those "experts" who should have a vote.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 11:36 am to UncleFestersLegs
quote:
The only solution is to remove the impetus. De-centralized power is much harder to bribe yet we continue to expand the reach of fed.gov
Yep. Reduce the control of the controllers, and the control of those who control the controllers will be reduced.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 11:36 am to Rex
quote:
“The appearance of influence or access … will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy.”
Kennedy's no clown, he's just cynical.
As long as the People are pitted against each other, he's right.
This post was edited on 4/16/14 at 11:37 am
Posted on 4/16/14 at 11:40 am to Rex
quote:
I'm guessing you consider yourself one of those "experts" who should have a vote.
Where did I say anyone shouldn't have a vote? I was remarking upon the structure of government in relation to industry.
Unfortunately an intelligent and informed citizenry is needed to elect the proper authorities to manage and we're not so good in that regard right now.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 11:47 am to Rex
"Wealth redistribution" only amounts to taking back what never should have been allowed in the first place.
Now I get it. duh. You should get what they got cuz they should not get it but you should.
Now I get it. duh. You should get what they got cuz they should not get it but you should.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 11:49 am to WildTchoupitoulas
I agree with you, but how do we reduce the control of the controllers when the controllers, themselves, decide things for themselves using such absurd specious rationale as speech = money and half of the controlled think it's a valid argument, just because their own political party made it? It's terribly dismaying.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 11:50 am to Rex
quote:There is no such thing as a true monopoly in a free market. The only way there theoretically could be is if that single entity is giving the people what they want and are vastly superior to any possible competition.
There is no "true free market system", unless you think the inevitable monopolies resulting from the absence of regulation is a "free market".
Posted on 4/16/14 at 11:50 am to themunch
quote:
"Wealth redistribution"
Is it wealth redistribution, or income redistribution?
Are the wealthy distributing their wealth or income? Are the poor getting wealthy, or just added income?
Posted on 4/16/14 at 11:52 am to WildTchoupitoulas
And, oh, by the way, on a somewhat related topic... Stephen Colbert to CBS Late Night is a disaster.
frick you, CBS, for stealing away one of America's most important voices (and maybe the ONLY voice Americans actually listen to) against such bullshite as Citizens United and McCutcheon.
frick you, CBS, for stealing away one of America's most important voices (and maybe the ONLY voice Americans actually listen to) against such bullshite as Citizens United and McCutcheon.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 11:59 am to Rex
quote:
America's most important voices
Posted on 4/16/14 at 12:04 pm to Rex
quote:
how do we reduce the control of the controllers
Get the People to wake up to what's going on. We still have lower middle class people who don't see anything wrong with the rich controlling the government, and so consistently vote against their own interests in the misplaced belief of ideological purity.
Party loyalty is in the interests of both political parties, therefore they will work together towards maintaining the system.
Personally, I never vote for a major party candidate in federal elections. I always vote for independent candidates. It's not that I want them to win, but it's a protest vote against the party system.
This, imo, is a better protest than simply not voting. If only 20% of eligible voters cast a ballot, the majority parties wouldn't care as long as they, combined, took 90% of the votes. But if 90% of the People voted, and the major parties only got 20% between them, you'd better believe they would change their approach.
3rd party voters represent a segment of the population that is willing to get out and vote, but is discontented with the parties. They care enough to vote, but they don't care for party politics. If enough people out there started doing this, the parties would be forced to change in order to maintain control over a majority.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 12:14 pm to PrimeTime Money
Duh as far as the US being an oligarchy. Anyone who doesn't think money runs the country and policy is delusional.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 12:18 pm to Rex
quote:Seems like a good argument for less government. You know, the least of a necessary evil or something to that effect.
inasmuch as Republican commoners continuously and stupidly vote against their own interests it's very difficult for us to decide, on top of the problem highlighted by the linked study: this is not a democracy but a game rigged against us.
But instead you seem to prefer to enlarge the government by continuously moving things like healthcare, job creation, education, and even the amount of pay people should be allowed to receive under the enlightened and astute auspices of this magnificent oligarchy.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 12:25 pm to Rex
quote:Yup. Only four rich people with influence in the government...
And being among the rich and powerful, themselves, "justices" Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito have zero problem with that.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 12:25 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:A truly competitive market with zero government interference would fix that. You've put your finger on exactly what Libertarians have been trying to get across for decades now.
This isn't about Ds or Rs, or Ls or Cs. It's about $s.
Go read some Mises or Rothbard if you haven't already. You may find that you are in agreement with more of what they say than you expect.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 12:27 pm to Rex
quote:So, do you think our legislators should vote for.. their own interest, or against their interests?
keep voting against themselves.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 12:34 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:The programs are clearly labeled.
What does "transfer payment" even mean?
quote:I though you didn't believe in trickle down economics.
When this money is transferred from the rich to the government and then to the poor, does it suddenly evaporate and leave the economy?
quote:Nope. Most of it ends up being spend on consumer goods. Which have a poor effect on generating wealth.
Is it ending up in the mattresses of the poor?
quote:I have no doubt in some circumstances they do.
Can you elaborate on why you think those who control the government aren't controlling it in their own interests?
No one goes to DC and becomes less wealthy.
But... to get that wealth they need to stay in office. The way to stay in office has become... give more stuff away. That's done to satisfy voters, not "rich" people.
I don't know how you can look at our budget, and the distribution of taxes and say that government is serving "the rich" disproportionately.
At this point almost 30% of our economy get's directly redistributed. Seemingly "the rich" would want to keep their money.
Posted on 4/16/14 at 12:35 pm to Rex
quote:What "people"? Nevadans, US Citizens, Americans, Earthlings, ancient aliens - where do you draw the line?
Cliven Bundy is a rich white man mooching off the people's land.
Who does that sandy beach near your east coast property belong to (hell, the property itself for that matter)? Why should you get to vacation there when so many others can't afford to, you moocher? Do you pay a dog walking fee to use that beach?
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News