Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by b.c., Dec 9, 2013.
Those creating the problem are the rich capitalists who own the politicians and the media.
I wonder why it's always rich Republicans who are always trying to keep the poor down, the last I saw and knew, rich Democrats were also doing their darndest to stay rich and keep others from their money. Please remember, one of the lefts heroes, Al Gore was living in a 26,000 square foot home, came from a family that raised tobacco and had a huge monthly electricity bill of around $3000.00 per month. That sure doesn't sound like the kind of person I would want speaking for the rights of the poor. The House and the Senate has many rich folks from both parties who are rich and intend to stay rich, yet making you think they want us all to be equals! Every man for him or herself!
Agreed 100%. The comparison of corporate welfare to social welfare is flawed to begin with because in many instances (not all) corporate welfare is meant to assist the producers for a beneficial economic reason whereas social welfare is virtually always meant to assist the non-producers who cannot function without a govt handout.
@ Underguy Those creating the problem are the rich capitalists who own the politicians and the media.
Keeping in mind ONLY THE WILLING CAN BE OWNED.
Most if not all politicians want to be owned, (Obama is owned by Wall Street aka Political Donations) it makes them feel powerful but in their effort to feel powerful they missed the part where they are just a pawn. It's funny, if these simple minded politicians tried simple logical solutions to problems we would have less problems. It's not as if we have a bunch of Einsteins running the government. Most sound about as dumb as they look.
Party politics is just theatre. It is there to distract you from the real powers and to give you the illusion of choice.
The corporate media just reinforces the illusion.
The most effective pawns become very rich. Clinton, Blair etc.
Don’t Plan on Retiring
This is what neoliberalism has brought. A bleak future. Both parties are still pushing it and most people are unable to see through it.
If you look again, you might notice that I already acknowledged in my opening post that the GOP was not alone when it comes to "sticking it to the poor". In the title as well, hence, "et al".
And if you re-examine what I wrote you might ALSO notice that the objective of the title (and the op) was to point out how GOP/conservative ideology and proposals by far outweigh the actions of others in this regard. If you want to classify such acknowledgement of that fact as "ignorant" that's your prerogative.
The point being that, assuming ALL politicians are going to take care of SELF first, AND assuming that (without some kind of mass revolution and ouster of both parties - IF not our form of government in general) ONE or the other is going to BE in "control" (more or less) - then which programs, proposals, laws, and ideology of the two (major political parties) "fuck" the poorest among us the least.
@b.c. I'm not sure there is a plausible, reliable, accurate or meaningful answer to your question. The system itself is corrupt and creates the very issues that distract the voters on what is really happening.
There needs to be a revolution. A revolution of change that takes corporate money out of politics FIRST AND FOREMOST. Then we need to establish set term limits on all politicians. 2 terms then get the fuck out and go back to work. Remove their retirement policy and retirement programs fire all their minions that do nothing but leach. Make it a system that people interested in change are willing to take time from their daily jobs and work in politics part time. Because politics is truly a part time job. If nothing else forcing it to be part time would give them less time to fuck the people of this country.
Just my thoughts.
Democrats want to help the poor by raising minimum wage (one way they plan on doing so). However, Milton Friedman has something to say about that. Raising the minimum wage to $15 like the fast food workers wants would only hurt them. An employer that pays that much in wages will hire someone that is worth $15. The whiners you saw (aside from the paid union professional protestors) are not worth $15.
In other words, not worth a living wage?
Friedman was a transparent charlatan.
Higher wages = increased aggregate demand = more jobs.
I happen to be in agreement with some of what you propose. Certainly there need be greater controls on contributions from corporations, business interests, and those posing as "special interest" groups and I've long been a critic of SCOTUS actions that have done the opposite. And certainly there need be term limits on all politicians, at the national, state, and local level.
I don't know about their retirement benefits. Presumably (like other jobs) they're having deductions from their salaries which go toward their retirement plan. I'll have to admit to not knowing precisely how theirs work (at the state or national level).
And there CERTAINLY need be stricter laws re. the use of salaried relatives to work within one's own campaign committee, as well as greater restrictions regarding all expenses paid so-called "business trips" abroad.
And finally, making political positions a part time job? Can't say I agree there. Not many are doing that great "FULL time".
@B.C. I'm happy to see we can agree on some items. It is just becoming increasingly frustrating to see how politicians shape an argument which then forces us (the citizens) to take sides. Once we start taking sides republican or democrat we have lost our focus on the real issue at hand and nothing gets solved.
My feeling is that if we start with term limits (strict) the incentive for a corporation to back financially a candidate will lose its steam. Once that happens we will get to a point where "Real People" can jump into politics with real solutions to problems.
Let's see your Nobel Prize awarded for disproving him.
The results of the neoliberal period have disproved him.
The (not really) Nobel Prize in economics has been awarded to some prize dunderheads.
Why? I'd have thought the opposite.
I was watching ed shults one night, he was preaching how income disparity is greater and greater. I just came from the Uptown Tavern on a Sunday night. It was completely filled. If the rich are getting richer poor getting poorer why was the tavern so full? One of his sponsors was Mercedes Benz they are made in Germany their bottom model starts at 30,000 dollars Ed Shults makes over a million dollars a year with his radio show and msnbc. If he or any other progressive complains about how taxes are to low all you have to do is show the money make your taxable income equal your adjusted gross income on your tax form.
They are just like the conservatives they both create spin, words like middle-class, 99% you create these arbitrary words which create their own meaning and tied to emotion. their intention is to divide
Term limits, I would hope, would bring the return of statesmen and end the career elected politician.
The first job a politician has is to get re-elected. I believe they often bow to the powers that can re-elect them than do what they think is right for their electorate.
Until that mentality changes, the Congress will be a circus....
Senators? One term. No reset for time out of office.
Reps? Two. Same rules apply.
That's what I'd like to see.
I fail to see that term limits wouldn't make that worse. If they have no chance of reelection, why the hell would they care what the electorate wants?
It'd just make money interests more powerful.
Better to get rid of political parties and give the power back to the voters.