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 12
    More: Obvious, 111th Congress, U.S. Senate  
•       •       •

979 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Aug 2013 at 5:47 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-08-22 05:59:12 PM
5 votes:
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 06:01:46 PM
3 votes:
In fairness they have an army of dribblingly pathetic Fark Independent morons supporting their interests daily too.
2013-08-22 06:28:12 PM
2 votes:
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 05:50:08 PM
2 votes:
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.
2013-08-23 10:24:40 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-08-22 07:08:44 PM
1 votes:

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 06:52:45 PM
1 votes:

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 06:34:00 PM
1 votes:

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 06:23:42 PM
1 votes:
www.screeninsults.com
2013-08-22 06:20:50 PM
1 votes:

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 06:09:44 PM
1 votes:

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 05:59:11 PM
1 votes:
it's a great place to slave while waiting to die.
 
Displayed 12 of 12 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report