3 ms·

Things are far from being as simple as you make them sound. In a two-party system with extreme gerrymandering and extensive lobbying by the rich, politicians ar

Things are far from being as simple as you make them sound. In a two-party system with extreme gerrymandering and extensive lobbying by the rich, politicians are no longer beholden to the people. People don't blindly support new laws like you say they do. In fact, Congress's approval rating has been in the shitter for a long time. People nowadays vote by figuring out who they dislike the least. But when it comes to referendums, we're seeing real change - marijuana was legalized in 2 states this time around. And you say voters want more people in jail? The book I mentioned debunks your theory of the ultrawealthy not being responsible for these problems. The statistics are quite clear regarding the increase in lobbying efforts by the wealthy and by large corporations during the 70s.

smsm42 14y ago
What you mean "no longer beholden to the people"? If nobody votes for them, how they get into the office? If people vote for whoever their union leader or "community organizer" or local party hack tells them to vote for - they shouldn't blame "the wealthy" when their lives do not improve. They should blame themselves. Congress approval ratings are in the shitter, yet the chance of an entrenched incumbent to be reelected are still high - even those in the middle of corruption scandals and bribery investigations. Same people get reelected for years, especially in mono-party environments. And people who elect them always blame somebody else for the inevitable failure. >>>> And you say voters want more people in jail? If they didn't, politicians would be afraid to talk about more restrictive laws and more criminal prosecutions. For example, racism is despised by a large percentage of US population - at least open, overt racism - and show me one politician that is playing on the national scene and is openly racist? Does not happen. Did the wealthy do it? Nope, the people did. You want to make the problem of over-jailing become better? Make politicians supporting jailing people for minor offenses as popular as racists. No wealth would help them then. >>>> marijuana was legalized in 2 states this time around. Yet in California, where anybody can see that anybody willing can smoke like a 19-century locomotive 24hrs a day, legalization proposals still fail. I do not blame abstract "the wealthy" for it, I blame specific people of California being stupid. BTW, I never said it is "simple". It is insanely complex and insanely messed up, and I have no slightest idea how to fix it. But I know one thing - blaming abstract "wealthy" for problems caused by regular citizens being stupid is not going to fix anything. Adding more stupid to the stupid doesn't make it better. >>>> The statistics are quite clear regarding the increase in lobbying efforts by the wealthy and by large corporations during the 70s. So what? Of course, lobbying is the most profitable investment in the known universe. Of course, there will be more of it. But try to think why it is profitable - who gives the politicians the power that they are selling and lobbyists are buying? The answer is - you do. Take it from them, and they'd have nothing to sell, and corporations would have to go and sell directly to you. Less profitable for them (wholesale is always cheaper, and buying power wholesale is not an exception), but better for you. The only thing you have to do is to get rid of the idea that you should give power to politicians so they solve your problems. If you can't - read your book and see what happens. The choice is yours.
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  > What you mean "no longer beholden to the people"? If nobody votes for them, how they get into the office? Have you noticed how few people actually vote? When there are only two parties and neither is particularly appealing, people just don't vote. > I do not blame abstract "the wealthy" for it, I blame specific people of California being stupid. Then you would be wrong. The wealthy support marijuana being illegal. It results in increased revenue for the alcohol and tobacco industries, increased revenue for the for-profit privatized prison industry, and it results in more money for government contractors that get funneled money via DEA contracts. The wealthy are in better placed to get their policies in place than the poor, because they can influence politicians even when there aren't elections coming up. The only chance the poor have of influencing politics is when there's an election coming up, and those elections aren't structured such that they're very effective. > But try to think why it is profitable - who gives the politicians the power that they are selling and lobbyists are buying? The answer is - you do. No, they do not. You still fail to understand the basic problems with our current electoral system, which limits us to two parties. When there is no competition in the electoral system, politicians can be influenced in other ways.

smsm42 14y ago

What you mean "no longer beholden to the people"? If nobody votes for them, how they get into the office? If people vote for whoever their union leader or "community organizer" or local party hack tells them to vote for - they shouldn't blame "the wealthy" when their lives do not improve. They should blame themselves. Congress approval ratings are in the shitter, yet the chance of an entrenched incumbent to be reelected are still high - even those in the middle of corruption scandals and bribery investigations. Same people get reelected for years, especially in mono-party environments. And people who elect them always blame somebody else for the inevitable failure. >>>> And you say voters want more people in jail? If they didn't, politicians would be afraid to talk about more restrictive laws and more criminal prosecutions. For example, racism is despised by a large percentage of US population - at least open, overt racism - and show me one politician that is playing on the national scene and is openly racist? Does not happen. Did the wealthy do it? Nope, the people did. You want to make the problem of over-jailing become better? Make politicians supporting jailing people for minor offenses as popular as racists. No wealth would help them then. >>>> marijuana was legalized in 2 states this time around. Yet in California, where anybody can see that anybody willing can smoke like a 19-century locomotive 24hrs a day, legalization proposals still fail. I do not blame abstract "the wealthy" for it, I blame specific people of California being stupid. BTW, I never said it is "simple". It is insanely complex and insanely messed up, and I have no slightest idea how to fix it. But I know one thing - blaming abstract "wealthy" for problems caused by regular citizens being stupid is not going to fix anything. Adding more stupid to the stupid doesn't make it better. >>>> The statistics are quite clear regarding the increase in lobbying efforts by the wealthy and by large corporations during the 70s. So what? Of course, lobbying is the most profitable investment in the known universe. Of course, there will be more of it. But try to think why it is profitable - who gives the politicians the power that they are selling and lobbyists are buying? The answer is - you do. Take it from them, and they'd have nothing to sell, and corporations would have to go and sell directly to you. Less profitable for them (wholesale is always cheaper, and buying power wholesale is not an exception), but better for you. The only thing you have to do is to get rid of the idea that you should give power to politicians so they solve your problems. If you can't - read your book and see what happens. The choice is yours.

w1ntermute 14y ago
> What you mean "no longer beholden to the people"? If nobody votes for them, how they get into the office? Have you noticed how few people actually vote? When there are only two parties and neither is particularly appealing, people just don't vote. > I do not blame abstract "the wealthy" for it, I blame specific people of California being stupid. Then you would be wrong. The wealthy support marijuana being illegal. It results in increased revenue for the alcohol and tobacco industries, increased revenue for the for-profit privatized prison industry, and it results in more money for government contractors that get funneled money via DEA contracts. The wealthy are in better placed to get their policies in place than the poor, because they can influence politicians even when there aren't elections coming up. The only chance the poor have of influencing politics is when there's an election coming up, and those elections aren't structured such that they're very effective. > But try to think why it is profitable - who gives the politicians the power that they are selling and lobbyists are buying? The answer is - you do. No, they do not. You still fail to understand the basic problems with our current electoral system, which limits us to two parties. When there is no competition in the electoral system, politicians can be influenced in other ways.