Printable View
No, we don't agree. I don't equate money and power. There are plenty of interest groups without substantial bankrolls that are both vocal and powerful in politics. You seem to think that money is necessary and sufficient, I do not.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I also disagree about the solution. As long as the government retains authority that extends beyond the simple necessities, it is not only susceptible to corruption, it invites it.
Okay, then give me some examples of valued "interest groups" that don't have big bucks behind them. Enough to gain legislators' or regulators' favor. Something like the entire Gulf coast fishing and tourist regions not having enough money or power to stand against oil companies, or the legislators and regulators that favor them ....Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Alternatively, cite just ONE group of poor people that holds power status in its own right [without needing a caucus, sub-committee, or lobbying group with enough money to influence legislators].
Yet, what other entity can fight corruption on a coordinated basis, other than our governmental agencies? Even when they don't work at optimal levels? That's not so much a "solution" to our problems, but trying to create an even playing field. The Freee Market is a fallacy, as is believing Freee Marketeers can "police" themselves. The last five years has proven that, with some very painful examples for the US.Quote:
I also disagree about the solution. As long as the government retains authority that extends beyond the simple necessities, it is not only susceptible to corruption, it invites it.
If you disagree, I'd like to know why. Give me some REAL examples.
When those with enough money can buy a different set of justice (eg well paid private lawyers getting their clients home arrest without any bail money paid up front, vs public lawyers whose clients spend a year in jail before trial because they can't post any bail--not even from a bailbondsman) it's pretty hard not to be cynical about our system of "justice". Or see justice--and law--can be bought by the highest bidder.
Nice way to shift the argument from "you must have money to matter" to "you must matter to matter". Of course any interest group with influence is going to need some mechanism for exerting that influence, but that influence need not be money. Church groups certainly have a lot of influence despite having no direct role over the funding of candidates. The NRA and the Sierra Club have substantial influence despite not having much money. Unions do provide funding, but their influence is much higher than those funding levels would indicate. The same is true of the AARP. The key criteria for being an influential interest groups are: being well-organized, having large membership, and having a permanent structure. It just so happens that each of those factors make it easier to raise money.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Poor people have a growing 'membership', and are a permanent structure in society. Just so happens that people without money aren't automatically "well organized", most likely due to their struggling economic status. Relying on a church or union affiliation, or the AARP doesn't mean the poor or working poor are well-represented, either.
There's no specific lobbying group for "poor people", the "unemployed" or "underemployed", comprised of just those people. They're too busy trying to put food on the table or find a job, so they have to rely on any influential and well-funded group to lobby for them, even in secondary or tertiary goals.
So yeah, in today's political climate, they have to hope people with money will take up their cause, to matter as people without means...in order to gain legislators' attention.
Today's political climate means a GOP with people like Gingrich proposing a legal second class of illegal immigrants with "work papers" and 9 year olds replacing janitors, Bachman saying those not working should not eat, Cain wanting to electrocute border fence climbers, Romney wanting to see more home foreclosures with families on the streets or declaring bankruptcy, but investors making money, and who the hell knows what Perry proposes--when he can't remember himself.
Using your logic, if money equals power, then the following gedankenexperiment experiment should hold true.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
If a wealthy radical Islamist decided to run for office here, (let's stipulate stupendously wealthy, dropping a billion dollars on his campaign wouldn't be a problem, and further stipulate that he was running for president) he would easily be elected because he has the money, therefore he has the power, correct?
As Loki pointed out, the NRA's income amounts to 50 some odd dollars per member, per year. Is that big bucks? They clearly exert power because of the size of their constituency, not the amount of income they take it. PETA totals about seventeen dollars per member.
If your point is large groups of like minded people can advocate effectively in a democracy, I don't think many people will disagree with you. Maxims are strange like that.
Cite one group of poor people who can't organize or become a group?Quote:
Alternatively, cite just ONE group of poor people that holds power status in its own right [without needing a caucus, sub-committee, or lobbying group with enough money to influence legislators].
More importantly, you don't think politicians pander to the poor? Who do you think social welfare programs are for? The rich? Do you think the war on poverty was undertaken because, glosh darnit, Lindon B. Johnson just really liked them po folk?
The free market isn't a fallacy, believing that the free market is the cause of the problems we've been facing the last five years is, to wit, what we are currently operating under in no way approaches a free market.Quote:
Yet, what other entity can fight corruption on a coordinated basis, other than our governmental agencies? Even when they don't work at optimal levels? That's not so much a "solution" to our problems, but trying to create an even playing field. The Freee Market is a fallacy, as is believing Freee Marketeers can "police" themselves. The last five years has proven that, with some very painful examples for the US.
Changing the goal posts yet again? Your point wasn't about poor people; you asked for ONE example of any group without much money exerting significant influence on politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Poor children for one. Working poor for another. Sure, they could "organize", but what are the odds they could do that, and become effective non-union or non-lobbyist groups, without some seed money from like-minded activists....with money?Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Funny you mention that when 'Corporate Welfare' and 'Congressional Insider Trading' is in the news recently, with bipartisan criticism. Besides, when politicians advocate for social welfare programs, that means public money is involved. Many progressives consider that part of government's role---to represent minority groups and/or those without means to have an office on K street.Quote:
More importantly, you don't think politicians pander to the poor? Who do you think social welfare programs are for? The rich? Do you think the war on poverty was undertaken because, glosh darnit, Lindon B. Johnson just really liked them po folk?
The fallacy is believing we've ever really operated in that theoretical Freee Market people love to talk about.Quote:
The free market isn't a fallacy, believing that the free market is the cause of the problems we've been facing the last five years is, to wit, what we are currently operating under in no way approaches a free market.
Okay, then give an example of a group without much money that exerts significant influence on politicians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Erm, you mean the NRA doesn't? :confused: NAACP? Sierra Club? Evangelical churches?
Do you consider those to be groups without much money "backing" their cause? :confused: They're so strapped for funds, they can't afford slick TV commercials, or donate to political campaigns, huh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
You should consider a career in soccer. With your skill in moving goal posts, you'll never allow a goal in.
This is very funny:
More here.Quote:
Traders From Chicago Board Of Trade Dump McDonald’s Applications On Occupy Chicago Protesters
It's almost as hilarious as when in the medieval times they drew out misfortunate people's guts for the glee of the crowd. Let's all clap our hands.
I know hey :p they sure knew how to deal with people in medieval times!
Bit cruel on McDonald's that. What has McDonald's ever done to deserve that? ;)
They also knew how to deal with fraudulent bankers, and it wasn't camping in front of their houses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Draco
Modern society has put lots of fraudulent bankers in jail.
Name one in the UK who was thrown into prison in connection with the 2008 financial crisis.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Sill Hazir, that wasn't fraud. That was the Free Market being free.
Don't recall there being criminal activities in the UK, where there has been people have been convicted.
It was the free market at work like it is at work when people sell cocaine that consists mostly of baking powder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust
A normal thinking person would have concluded there was no investigation for the simple reason the poodles in Whitehall didn't want to spook their buddies in the City. You know, the same people who persistantly threathen to leave London if London is not a nice doggy and plays dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Nah, the free market does a good job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Again, the City of London is really useful for London.Quote:
A normal thinking person would have concluded there was no investigation for the simple reason the poodles in Whitehall didn't want to spook their buddies in the City. You know, the same people who persistantly threathen to leave London if London is not a nice doggy and plays dead.
Yeah, that's what I said. The free market being free.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
All hail the Free Market! (PBUI)Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
HEIL! HEIL! HEIL!
wait what
Yes that's right, love the free market, otherwise we'll have to resort to certain medieval practices to convince you otherwise! :p
Like torturing us with lolbertarian logic?
I yield. I :heart: the free market.
teehee, good enough for me ;) :p
How can you say that with a straight face when the financial sector is [arguably] the most heavily regulated sector? It's nothing even resembling a "free market" when there are several thousand pages of law governing it, so is this just thinly veiled Marxist bullshit, or what? Granted it seems to be the first play in every politician's playbook these days (regulate the shit out of whatever, and then blame the ensuing problems on a fictional lack of regulation), but still...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust
Regulate the banks forcing them to lend to those who couldn't afford to, then blame the bankers for making those loans.
I don't exactly recall the banks screaming very loud in protest.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Do we have data indicating that all the bad loans were mandated on the banks by the evil nanny state government?