agree with this, unfortunately that contingent always votes. we will see what happens in 2012 when the national election will bring out more young voters
"Buying" votes with attack ads and TV commercials is only one part of the successful campaign of the oligarchs. Even more successful is all of the deeper propaganda and political work-- the generous funding by the Koch bros and others of "free enterprise" think tanks, endowed charis in the Biz School, the libertarian stuff, the truncated econ courses carefully designed to make someone a supporter of laissez faire. In years past you used to have the Labor Section of the newspapers in many parts of the country, now it is only the Business Section. Hollywood movies used to portray unions in a positive light at least occasionally etc. etc.. You see the results of this ideological onslaught everyday on the bbs. The young Ron Paul supporters or consrvatives who truly believe that they will be trickled down on.. At time they even reach the point in which they decry interfering with the labor market through unions as they think it "immorally" affects the labor market and leads to the hideous result of some folks getting paid more than (gasp!) fair market value. They rail against a pension of $2,000 per month by a teacher who may not be the best possible while they deeply support a hedge fund manger who made a billion speculating on currencies or perhaps credit default swaps as their money was market value.
True but I think with the addition of other parties and broader appeal the money may not be so concentrated either. Whether it is or not, I believe there needs to some serious campaign finance reform that goes on to curtail the money involved in elections no matter how many parties we have running.
These alarmist articles always seem to creep up from some obscure leftist outlet. Always the same gripe: Republicans/the wealthy/the top 1 % are buying elections and consolidating power, while Americans are too stupid to realize the existence of this secret oligarchy. Even though, Linda McMahon, Meg Whitman, and Carly Fiorina spent hundreds of millions of dollars on losing campaigns. I bet our oligarch overloads were pretty pissed about flushing that huge pile of cash down the toilet! Oh BTW where's George Soros' hand in this oligarchy? Has he moved on?
It's called the power of "democracy". Any valuable information could be diluted by a "suspicious" mind from the opposite side. Oh well and that side usually controls the mass media, and alas, you've got useful idiots all over the plate.
How the rich soaked the rest of us www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/mar/01/us-t... sent by Mike5000 since 9 hours 6 minutes, published about 2 hours 32 minutes Reduced taxes on the rich leave them with more money to influence politicians and politics. Their influence wins them further tax reductions, which gives them still more money to put to political use. When the loss of tax revenue from the rich worsens already strained government budgets, the rich press politicians to cut public services and government jobs and not even debate a return to the higher taxes the rich used to pay.
If you can read the article, it's the rich on both sides fighting their ideological battles while other Americans are left mostly impotent or inactive. The middle class is getting shafted while the top 1% are enjoying the larger share of taxcuts and loopholes. Meanwhile social services are getting cut and social workers are to blame for funding crises.
If you read the article (you obviously didn't, probably because you don't read anything that might contradict your twisted worldview) you would see that Soros was mentioned as one of the monied individuals who influences elections with his money.
Is Cambridge University Press legit enough for you? http://journals.cambridge.org/actio...55B094B4A.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=6677116 Oligarchy in the United States? Jeffrey A. Winters and Benjamin I. Page Abstract: We explore the possibility that the US political system can usefully be characterized as oligarchic. Using amaterial-based definition drawn from Aristotle, we argue that oligarchy is not inconsistent with democracy; that oligarchs need not occupy formal office or conspire together or even engage extensively in politics in order to prevail; that great wealth can provide both the resources and the motivation to exert potent political influence. Data on the US distributions of income and wealth are used to construct several Material Power Indices, which suggest that thewealthiest Americans may exert vastly greater political influence than average citizens and that a very small group of the wealthiest (perhaps the top tenth of 1 percent) may have sufficient power to dominate policy in certain key areas. A brief review of the literature suggests possible mechanisms by which such influence could occur, through lobbying, the electoral process, opinion shaping, and the US Constitution itself. Their conclusion: We argue that it is useful to think about the US political system in terms of oligarchy. Other texts on this issue that argue for or provide proof of oligarchy in the US: http://www.amazon.com/Power-Elite-C-Wright-Mills/dp/0195133544 http://www.amazon.com/Community-Pow...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1299108159&sr=1-1
The article lays it on a bit thick. Democrats have trouble holding their majority, because they have alienated White working class voters. All the GOP has done is take advantage of that reality, but if the left would simply throttle back on their ingrained hostility towards Whites, the GOP would wither on the vine and fade into history. I am still optimistic, however, that Obama will be reelected.
I think you have it wrong. The Dems need to start supporting the whole working class, including whites. The whole downward trend of the entire working class has affected whites the most. They are down economically like blacks, but at least working class blacks can vote,eat in restaurants etc when they could not before. It is the GOP who like to pretend that the Dems are against the whites in the working class. I'll grant you that the white resentment angle has been efffective for the GOP. I lived in Madison Wisconsin. Hardly any non-whites there. It is clear to those folks that the GOP is against the white working class. Have you seen any pictures or news stories?
Yes, dude, I am informed, and the anti White vibe is strong within liberal circles, and it alienates White working class voters. The GOP inflames this, but they do not create the flame, they only feed it.
A more asinine, slanderous and odious article I could not find. Each passing year I find the inevitable liberal leaning article how the top 1/3/5/x % now control 50/70/80/whatever increasing proportions of the wealth, seemingly suggesting there's somehow the existence of something along the lines of the Putin's Platinum Club in Russia or the caste system in India. And heck, after that "computational glitch" in that Dept of Treasury/IRS calculation several month back, the usual "outrage" ensued. Yep, the rich sure are running one heck of the club over there. Instead, I actually looked up the numbers. It's fascinating really. Reagan is the usual fall guy here. Them Chinamen is another good bogeyman, so let's backtrack to the 80's shall we? Over the past 30 years or so, 40% of American/American families that were among the top 5% of population no longer are there. Likewise 60% of the bottom ladder no longer are there either. I keeping hearing the good old liberal "aristocracy/slave" labels thrown around and yet I found evidence precisely to the contrary. I keeping hoping at some point in my life this bullsh1t would end, but it doesn't seem like it's gonna happen. Sad. Last time I checked, the top 5% still pays over 50% of taxes and the top 20% pays over 80% of all taxes. The idea the middle class is getting shafted is, to put it diplomatically, idiotic. Yes, the rich have seen their share reduce relatively to the astronomical amounts. They also receive BY FAR, the smallest benefit from their tax revenue, especially if viewed in the form of ROI, as most governmental programs do not apply to them. Let's not beat around the bush here, they are lobbying to keep a larger fraction of THEIR MONEY. Just like the middle class and lower class also love programs benefiting them. There is no fundamental difference, only conflicting interests, so let's not get all moralistic here. Know which class I side with (as if it wasn't blatantly obvious by now)? The one that actually earned HIS/HER money. Instead claiming the existence of an oligarchy, why aren't you asking the question why you, him or anybody else aren't there?
No,dude, it is you who are misinformed. I'm speaking as a white with liberal circles. Where are you coming from, dude?
Somebody needs to pay for the foundation of a modern capitalistic society and it might as well be the people who benefit from it the most(ie the wealthy). Or you can just assume that the top whatever % were able to earn all their money with out that massive transportation network that moves goods\people across the country, teachers\professors to educate productive workers, police\firemen to protect them, a massive military to exert influence, funding for public research and lots of other crap paid with public money.
You have to admire the rich conservatives. They actually have persuaded people to act against their own interests. It's like the people selling snake oil. Who is to blame, the snake oil sales person, or the dumb fool who buys the crap? People are blind...liberals, conservative, independents - it doesn't matter. Most people don't take the time to debate and discuss the issues. If every American had to spend 8 months debating with the people on this board, from Basso to Sam Fischer - you know what, none of that money spent would be effective. People would be able to make their own choices and we'd actually have a gov't that didn't try to pull the wool over our eyes and cynically play to people's ignorance and misperceptions. But we don't. And who is responsible for that? It's us. People don't really understand what education is about. It's not just learning how great America is, or math or science. It was critical thinking. To think for yourself and not be a sheep. I still remember there were classes where independent thinking was respected and encouraged, but often it was put down and kids told, just follow the book. That's our public education system, and that's why we have sheep. I guess that's why the rich want to cut that sector - their kids are in private school anyway, who cares about everyone else? The Tea Party had the right quote but the wrong target: The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants Great quote from Jefferson. But it's not the gov't pulling the strings, not the unions which are on their last legs, not old people, not the poor, and not the NCAAP. It's the wealthy. And while the continue to collect wealth while the masses live worse and worse lives, it's not democracy that is threatened, it's the rich. One only has to look to the middle east - to Egypt and Libya. If you think these are wars of dictatorships and a love of freedom, you are totally wrong. It's about economic hardship. It's about living poorly while you see others living luxuriously. After so long the anger swells over. Guess who the target of that anger will be. Today it's democrats. yesterday it was republicans. tomorrow it will be both. Eventually, people will begin to figure it out as conditions get worse and worse. Cut spending?? Ha - who does that help? Who doesn't get hurt by spending cuts? I don't feel bad at all. And while I am only in the top 90% I seek to become part of that top 1% or .1%, because let's face it, that's the good life. Even if you make $200k a year - it's really middle class. And that's disturbing. Oh well, I'm curious to see how this plays out in 30 years.
