If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   Study conducted by the No shiat, Sherlock Institute finds that Congress is more receptive to the plight of rich people   (rawstory.com) divider line 59
    More: Obvious, 111th Congress, U.S. Senate  
•       •       •

977 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Aug 2013 at 5:47 PM (34 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



59 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-22 05:50:08 PM
Well, by having the most money, they have the most speech. Therefore, their issues are more prominent as their speech outnumbers those with less speech. As it is Congress' job to listen to the most important issues to their constituents, they should be representing the issues affecting those with money.

Logic.
 
2013-08-22 05:54:03 PM
You mean that when politicians court people for money the folks who have the money are the ones whose concerns get listened to?
 
2013-08-22 05:56:47 PM
Mo' money, mo' problems.
 
2013-08-22 05:59:11 PM
it's a great place to slave while waiting to die.
 
2013-08-22 05:59:12 PM
Ages ago, I read a "day in the life" type article about a state (can't remember which) rep whose staff included 10 people who did nothing but make phone calls all day to snag campaign donations. The rep said that in order to keep his job those phoners had to rake in a minimum of $10,000 a day for campaign money. Getting that money was his biggest worry. Not the needs of his constituents -- unless they were willing to pay for play.

There is something very wrong with this system, but all the bread and circuses keep us entertained and fed so we just... let it go at our peril.
 
2013-08-22 06:00:26 PM

Car_Ramrod: Well, by having the most money, they have the most speech. Therefore, their issues are more prominent as their speech outnumbers those with less speech. As it is Congress' job to listen to the most important issues to their constituents, they should be representing the issues affecting those with money.

Logic.


I respectfully disagree. While it is clear that the rich do have the most (and the most important) speech, the key to understanding Congress' support of the rich is their role in society as the job creators. Many Americans possess skills, trades, and the ability to manufacture the great products we all enjoy, but they lack the most crucial and rarest ability of all- the ability to create jobs. This is what made the rich rich in the first place, and they are the lynchpin that holds our fragile society and economy together.
 
2013-08-22 06:01:46 PM
In fairness they have an army of dribblingly pathetic Fark Independent morons supporting their interests daily too.
 
2013-08-22 06:08:03 PM
Someone's sarcasmometer is broken. Also, it's linchpin.
 
2013-08-22 06:09:44 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: Car_Ramrod: Well, by having the most money, they have the most speech. Therefore, their issues are more prominent as their speech outnumbers those with less speech. As it is Congress' job to listen to the most important issues to their constituents, they should be representing the issues affecting those with money.

Logic.

I respectfully disagree. While it is clear that the rich do have the most (and the most important) speech, the key to understanding Congress' support of the rich is their role in society as the job creators. Many Americans possess skills, trades, and the ability to manufacture the great products we all enjoy, but they lack the most crucial and rarest ability of all- the ability to create jobs. This is what made the rich rich in the first place, and they are the lynchpin that holds our fragile society and economy together.


They should do something similar to a midichlorian count* so we can tell from an early age who the most able job creaters are. I assume it can be done by the Chamber of Commerce and/or The Business Council.

*I know I know shut up
 
2013-08-22 06:10:25 PM
Upon further study, it appears that "lynchpin" is also acceptable, although not as prevalent. Apologies. But your sarcasmometer is still broken. :)
 
2013-08-22 06:15:27 PM

Selector: Someone's sarcasmometer is broken. Also, it's linchpin.


I do love a fellow spelling and grammar Nazi, but it turns out "lynchpin" is an acceptable spelling.

/f*ck this crazy language
 
2013-08-22 06:16:45 PM
Also, f*ck my slow a** phone. Sorry.
 
2013-08-22 06:16:50 PM
I'm shocked. Shocked, I say.

Now the only thing to do to fix this is to kill all the rich people, leaving middle class and lower to be the only ones left.

But...wouldn't that make them the new rich...?

/ponder
//wish there was a legit way to fix this shiat.
 
2013-08-22 06:17:47 PM

Selector: Someone's sarcasmometer is broken. Also, it's linchpin.


You are correct that someone's sarcasmometer is broken ...
 
2013-08-22 06:20:27 PM

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: Selector: Someone's sarcasmometer is broken. Also, it's linchpin.

I do love a fellow spelling and grammar Nazi, but it turns out "lynchpin" is an acceptable spelling.

/f*ck this crazy language


Wooooo! Technically correct. To be honest, I gambled and skipped the Google search even though I was a bit iffy.

/likes to live dangerously
 
2013-08-22 06:20:50 PM

Selector: Upon further study, it appears that "lynchpin" is also acceptable, although not as prevalent. Apologies. But your sarcasmometer is still broken. :)


Uhm he was being just as sarcastic. I think you need to recalibrate.
 
2013-08-22 06:23:42 PM
www.screeninsults.com
 
2013-08-22 06:24:53 PM
People tend to take care of their own. The poorest Senator is worth several million dollars, and it wouldn't surprise me if the poorest Representative is worth at least a million.

Get us back to the point that you don't have to be rich to run for the House (or any public office) and we might get back to the point where at least some of our politicians care about people who aren't rich.
 
2013-08-22 06:25:01 PM
We have it codified in our law that money equals speech, for fark's sake. What else would you expect?
 
2013-08-22 06:26:58 PM
Well it makes sense. After all those with the most money can do the most for the politicians (cash/favors/connections/etc) in turn so it makes sense to listen to people who can do something for you.  If two people approach me asking for something and I can only give one what they want, I'd pick the one who could do something for me.  Seems rather human to me.
 
2013-08-22 06:28:12 PM
The Senate is the equivalent to the House of Lords, and was designed to ensure that the rich will always have more say. This country was founded by rich men who were fine with British rule until they hit the glass ceiling as subjects.
 
2013-08-22 06:34:00 PM

Apik0r0s: The Senate is the equivalent to the House of Lords, and was designed to ensure that the rich will always have more say. This country was founded by rich men who were fine with British rule until they hit the glass ceiling as subjects. had to pay taxes



Tale as old as time....
media.tumblr.com
 
2013-08-22 06:36:28 PM

Car_Ramrod: Well, by having the most money, they have the most speech. Therefore, their issues are more prominent as their speech outnumbers those with less speech. As it is Congress' job to listen to the most important issues to their constituents, they should be representing the issues affecting those with money.

Logic.


well obviously they represent all the people that gave them the money and all the workers below them to speak right?
 
2013-08-22 06:52:45 PM

un4gvn666: We have it codified in our law that money equals speech, for fark's sake. What else would you expect?


No we don't we just have a SC that grossly misinterpreted the constitution.
 
2013-08-22 06:56:47 PM
The sound of a single guillotine blade dropping is louder than a thousand rich people. ;)
 
2013-08-22 07:08:03 PM

Warlordtrooper: un4gvn666: We have it codified in our law that money equals speech, for fark's sake. What else would you expect?

No we don't we just have a SC that grossly misinterpreted the constitution.


common law. it's law.
 
2013-08-22 07:08:44 PM

WordyGrrl: Ages ago, I read a "day in the life" type article about a state (can't remember which) rep whose staff included 10 people who did nothing but make phone calls all day to snag campaign donations. The rep said that in order to keep his job those phoners had to rake in a minimum of $10,000 a day for campaign money. Getting that money was his biggest worry. Not the needs of his constituents -- unless they were willing to pay for play.

There is something very wrong with this system, but all the bread and circuses keep us entertained and fed so we just... let it go at our peril.


We need to follow the example of countries like England and Australia that limit campaigns to a month before the election. Besides being corrupting all the fundraising is a distraction from the actual work they should be doing.
 
2013-08-22 07:15:15 PM

Car_Ramrod: UrukHaiGuyz: Car_Ramrod: Well, by having the most money, they have the most speech. Therefore, their issues are more prominent as their speech outnumbers those with less speech. As it is Congress' job to listen to the most important issues to their constituents, they should be representing the issues affecting those with money.

Logic.

I respectfully disagree. While it is clear that the rich do have the most (and the most important) speech, the key to understanding Congress' support of the rich is their role in society as the job creators. Many Americans possess skills, trades, and the ability to manufacture the great products we all enjoy, but they lack the most crucial and rarest ability of all- the ability to create jobs. This is what made the rich rich in the first place, and they are the lynchpin that holds our fragile society and economy together.

They should do something similar to a midichlorian count* so we can tell from an early age who the most able job creaters are. I assume it can be done by the Chamber of Commerce and/or The Business Council.

*I know I know shut up


Got that for ya:

hypehumor.com
 
2013-08-22 07:38:03 PM

WordyGrrl: Ages ago, I read a "day in the life" type article about a state (can't remember which) rep whose staff included 10 people who did nothing but make phone calls all day to snag campaign donations. The rep said that in order to keep his job those phoners had to rake in a minimum of $10,000 a day for campaign money. Getting that money was his biggest worry. Not the needs of his constituents -- unless they were willing to pay for play.

There is something very wrong with this system, but all the bread and circuses keep us entertained and fed so we just... let it go at our peril.


That's very true, but some people look at that and think the solution is to take away powers and responsibilities from the federal and state governments - which allows businesses with good legal departments even more leeway, and just makes the problem worse.
 
2013-08-22 07:58:51 PM

WordyGrrl: Ages ago, I read a "day in the life" type article about a state (can't remember which) rep whose staff included 10 people who did nothing but make phone calls all day to snag campaign donations. The rep said that in order to keep his job those phoners had to rake in a minimum of $10,000 a day for campaign money. Getting that money was his biggest worry. Not the needs of his constituents -- unless they were willing to pay for play.

There is something very wrong with this system, but all the bread and circuses keep us entertained and fed so we just... let it go at our peril.


I would have said this was the fundamental problem, not just something very wrong.

US has set up one of the most corrupt political systems in the Western world.

If you have to spend tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to get elected, then almost always need outside money. And no one gives money to anyone who doesn't support their interests. So pols have to provide a quid pro quo for sponsors' contributions, or they won't get the donations they need to get re-elected.

Probably everyone hates it - the pols hate having to spend so much time begging; the sponsors hate being strong-armed into giving money they'd rather spend on hookers and blow; and everyone outside the system hates the corruption.

Other countries have figured out how to stop this. They limit total spending and which groups can spend  and restrict campaign times.

Perhaps all political ads could only be screened on PBS .....
 
2013-08-22 08:11:44 PM

Apik0r0s: The Senate is the equivalent to the House of Lords, and was designed to ensure that the rich will always have more say. This country was founded by rich men who were fine with British rule until they hit the glass ceiling as subjects.


Huh?

i43.tower.com
 
2013-08-22 08:14:39 PM

Car_Ramrod: UrukHaiGuyz: Car_Ramrod: Well, by having the most money, they have the most speech. Therefore, their issues are more prominent as their speech outnumbers those with less speech. As it is Congress' job to listen to the most important issues to their constituents, they should be representing the issues affecting those with money.

Logic.

I respectfully disagree. While it is clear that the rich do have the most (and the most important) speech, the key to understanding Congress' support of the rich is their role in society as the job creators. Many Americans possess skills, trades, and the ability to manufacture the great products we all enjoy, but they lack the most crucial and rarest ability of all- the ability to create jobs. This is what made the rich rich in the first place, and they are the lynchpin that holds our fragile society and economy together.

They should do something similar to a midichlorian count* so we can tell from an early age who the most able job creaters are. I assume it can be done by the Chamber of Commerce and/or The Business Council.

*I know I know shut up


I propose trial by combat.
 
2013-08-22 08:17:30 PM
Our bread and circuses are pretty farking awesome though.

And refridgerators.
 
2013-08-22 08:27:53 PM
The problem isn't that the rich have money, the problem is that the poor don't care. The only reason politicians need millions of dollars to campaign is because that is what it takes to shake the poor out of their indifference. Even then, most people who are eligible to vote don't vote. So if money wins it is not because of some inherent magical property in money. Money wins mostly by default.
 
2013-08-22 08:28:41 PM
lol at the "plight" of the rich
 
2013-08-22 08:39:46 PM
This story will never take off.

/unless its flying out a congressman's small, local airport
 
2013-08-22 09:08:07 PM
I'd actually like to found a N.S. Sherlock institute for the study of the glancingly obvious.
 
2013-08-22 09:10:36 PM

fusillade762: WordyGrrl: Ages ago, I read a "day in the life" type article about a state (can't remember which) rep whose staff included 10 people who did nothing but make phone calls all day to snag campaign donations. The rep said that in order to keep his job those phoners had to rake in a minimum of $10,000 a day for campaign money. Getting that money was his biggest worry. Not the needs of his constituents -- unless they were willing to pay for play.

There is something very wrong with this system, but all the bread and circuses keep us entertained and fed so we just... let it go at our peril.

We need to follow the example of countries like England and Australia that limit campaigns to a month before the election. Besides being corrupting all the fundraising is a distraction from the actual work they should be doing.


I'd be on board with that, totally. And I'm sure those who get robo-called to death in the "only important states" would be happy with it, too.
 
2013-08-22 09:12:17 PM
Couldn't be bothered to read the article, but didn't the headline point out the Senate in particular?  Wasn't Congress designed from the start to be careful to the plight of rich landed white men, and the Senate careful of the plight of super-rich landed white men?

Wouldn't want to interfere with the founding fathers original intent, now would we?
 
2013-08-22 09:17:59 PM

UNC_Samurai: WordyGrrl: Ages ago, I read a "day in the life" type article about a state (can't remember which) rep whose staff included 10 people who did nothing but make phone calls all day to snag campaign donations. The rep said that in order to keep his job those phoners had to rake in a minimum of $10,000 a day for campaign money. Getting that money was his biggest worry. Not the needs of his constituents -- unless they were willing to pay for play.

There is something very wrong with this system, but all the bread and circuses keep us entertained and fed so we just... let it go at our peril.

That's very true, but some people look at that and think the solution is to take away powers and responsibilities from the federal and state governments - which allows businesses with good legal departments even more leeway, and just makes the problem worse.


I think we'd all have a major case of the vapors if we knew exactly which and how many bills introduced to Congress were actually written up in the boardrooms of private industries, and passed off as "introduced by Senator So and So." Ambition is fine, but when it turns to greed? Well, greed is one of those "human natures" that needs to be reined in a bit by proper legislation. Which we're never going to see under the current way of doing business.
 
2013-08-22 09:18:31 PM
Rich people are demonstrably better informed/educated than poor people.  They should have more influence for that reason alone.

If we treated all constituents' opinions equally, we'd be teaching creationism in the public schools, and a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage would have passed 20 years ago.
 
2013-08-22 09:19:11 PM
Poor people are free to spend their millions however they want! It's not the market's fault that they choose to waste it on frivolous things like food and visits to the doctor's office!
 
2013-08-22 09:24:09 PM

mjjt: WordyGrrl: Ages ago, I read a "day in the life" type article about a state (can't remember which) rep whose staff included 10 people who did nothing but make phone calls all day to snag campaign donations. The rep said that in order to keep his job those phoners had to rake in a minimum of $10,000 a day for campaign money. Getting that money was his biggest worry. Not the needs of his constituents -- unless they were willing to pay for play.

There is something very wrong with this system, but all the bread and circuses keep us entertained and fed so we just... let it go at our peril.

I would have said this was the fundamental problem, not just something very wrong.

US has set up one of the most corrupt political systems in the Western world.

If you have to spend tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to get elected, then almost always need outside money. And no one gives money to anyone who doesn't support their interests. So pols have to provide a quid pro quo for sponsors' contributions, or they won't get the donations they need to get re-elected.

Probably everyone hates it - the pols hate having to spend so much time begging; the sponsors hate being strong-armed into giving money they'd rather spend on hookers and blow; and everyone outside the system hates the corruption.

Other countries have figured out how to stop this. They limit total spending and which groups can spend  and restrict campaign times.

Perhaps all political ads could only be screened on PBS .....


That would be an interesting experiment: "Dear Politician, You have $100,000 and 30 days in which to use that money for campaign ads. Best of luck, the Unwashed Masses." The phonies will be immediately outed by their insistence that one can force a meme to go viral.
 
2013-08-22 09:54:28 PM
if you are rich, you have no plight.
 
2013-08-22 10:15:44 PM

Whiskey Pete: austerity101: Selector: Someone's sarcasmometer is broken. Also, it's linchpin.

You are correct that someone's sarcasmometer is broken ...

LULZ (LYLZ is also acceptable)


media.smithsonianmag.com
 
2013-08-22 11:46:34 PM
The neglect of lower income groups was a bipartisan affair. Democrats were not any more responsive to the poor than Republicans.

But their supporters still think that they are.

Anyway, how rich do you have to be before people in power give a fark about you?  Millionaire?  Multi-millionaire?
 
2013-08-22 11:48:40 PM
Oh, and:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/power.ht m

That which is for me through the medium ofmoney - that for which I can pay (i.e., which money can buy) - that amI myself,the possessor of the money. The extent of the power of money is the extent of my power. Money's properties are my - the possessor's - properties and essential powers. Thus, what Iam andam capable of is by no means determined by my individuality.
 
2013-08-23 12:00:52 AM
That would include the majority from all of the big political parties wouldn't it?
 
2013-08-23 12:38:46 AM

sendtodave: Anyway, how rich do you have to be before people in power give a fark about you?  Millionaire?  Multi-millionaire?


Ah, found it.

$5 million.

http://www.doughroller.net/personal-finance/who-is-considered-rich/
 
2013-08-23 12:57:02 AM

sendtodave: The neglect of lower income groups was a bipartisan affair. Democrats were not any more responsive to the poor than Republicans.

But their supporters still think that they are.

Anyway, how rich do you have to be before people in power give a fark about you?  Millionaire?  Multi-millionaire?


They may not be more responsive, but their policies are still far preferable.
 
Displayed 50 of 59 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report