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  
•       •       •

978 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Aug 2013 at 5:47 PM (45 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
 
2013-08-23 01:31:58 AM
 
2013-08-23 01:35:25 AM
 Rights must be religiously respected wherever they exist, and it is the duty of the public authority to prevent and to punish injury, and to protect every one in the possession of his own. Still, when there is question of defending the rights of individuals, the poor and badly off have a claim to especial consideration. The richer class have many ways of shielding themselves, and stand less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back upon, and must chiefly depend upon the assistance of the State. And it is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong in the mass of the needy, should be specially cared for and protected by the government.

link in previous post
 
2013-08-23 02:15:29 AM

Smackledorfer: 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.


I like to believe Dems are better. The reality is it may only be by the slimmest of margins, but they do seem slightly better than the GOP.

What they typically do though is go into every debate with the attitude they're going to shake things up, utter some contrivances, cave immediately, and end up supporting very similar legislature as republicans. Obamacare is a great example. It's so far removed from what liberals wanted, most wouldn't be that upset if it was repealed. It's probably better than nothing, and by that ridiculously low bar the Dems are better.
 
2013-08-23 02:20:26 AM

MayoSlather: Smackledorfer: 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.

I like to believe Dems are better. The reality is it may only be by the slimmest of margins, but they do seem slightly better than the GOP.

What they typically do though is go into every debate with the attitude they're going to shake things up, utter some contrivances, cave immediately, and end up supporting very similar legislature as republicans. Obamacare is a great example. It's so far removed from what liberals wanted, most wouldn't be that upset if it was repealed. It's probably better than nothing, and by that ridiculously low bar the Dems are better.


Republicans have proven themselves to be sore winners on the healthcare issue...

Their entire plan rests upon nobody realizing that the Affordable Care Act was a huge compromise made by Obama and convincing people that their own alternative to "HillaryCare" was shoved down their throats.

Proceed, Republicans!
 
2013-08-23 02:30:24 AM
i43.tinypic.com
 
2013-08-23 03:47:13 AM

WordyGrrl: 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.


We easily could, if the media gave half a shiat about ALEC.
 
2013-08-23 07:06:28 AM

Captain Dan: 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.


So you admit that the middle class no longer matters and we are okay with a 3rd world style nation consisting of only the rich and the poor? It appears you aren't really in favor of the democratic system either, just a nation run by the interests of the rich. At least you're honest.
 
2013-08-23 10:24:40 AM

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 .....


I guess not having a written constitution whereby the limiting of bribes to politicians is considered infringing on people's free speech has its benefits.
 
2013-08-23 05:16:50 PM

TheJoe03: It appears you aren't really in favor of the democratic system either, just a nation run by the interests of the rich. At least you're honest.


I favor governance by the elite.  That's democratic enough for me: most people, through effort, can strive to be the best informed in a particular niche.  If they can't, I don't want them making decisions for people who are smarter and harder working.

Experts should make decisions.  Whether they're rich, poor, or middle-class is immaterial.
 
Displayed 9 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