• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

We definitely need more money in politics

Shorty said:
How long/deep/wide would a ditch be if a guy worked digging it for 37.5 hours/week? Why would we need such a ditch? Would it eventually be necessary to pay another guy to fill in the ditch?
Click to expand...

Only if it was "shovel ready!"
 
Sgt Hulka said:
Wake n bake does not understand the term work or the value of a certain skill set to the economy. He believes it only means physical toil.

I know people like this. They believe that the person working 60 hrs a week at a desk (accountants, finance people-I'm leaving out lawyers because they suck, etc) do less "work" than the guy digging a ditch for 37.5 hrs/week.

Nothing more to see here.
Click to expand...

your mom understood the term work and the value of a certain skill just last night, Hulka my dear boy. I'm sure she taught you well, too.

I think nothing of the sort. I was one of those people strapped to a desk for 60+ hours a week for 17 years. Now I own a small business and am strapped to my work for basically my entire day/week, and I am taking an enormous risk with my money, and I still believe that money needs to be taken out of politics as much as possible.

Its people like you who believe that some punk kid at an investment firm who has never made anything except imaginary numbers on a chart is making some grand contribution to our economy who are fucking everything up. There is a value to investing, sure. I have an investment guy. But to believe that he somehow deserves - by simply spending money on some yes-man crumb-snatching politician to skew the rules in his favor - better treatment, is asinine.
 
Hulka, thanks for your response. Seems like your definition would include someone who is unemployed and looking for a job.
 
From not long ago, Krugman: Oligarchy, American Style

Quote:
----------
...So what you need to know is that all of these claims are basically attempts to obscure the stark reality: We have a society in which money is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few people, and in which that concentration of income and wealth threatens to make us a democracy in name only...

... The larger answer, however, is that extreme concentration of income is incompatible with real democracy. Can anyone seriously deny that our political system is being warped by the influence of big money, and that the warping is getting worse as the wealth of a few grows ever larger?

Some pundits are still trying to dismiss concerns about rising inequality as somehow foolish. But the truth is that the whole nature of our society is at stake...
----------
 
BillBrasky said:
They have equal representation. Its just that the janitor is too fucking stupid to vote for someone who represents his best interests. He'd rather rely on skin color or religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

It is more likely that no candidate represents the best interests of the common folk as all candidates are tied to the money needed for an election. Obama is a perfect example.
 
sailordeac said:
Ok, its settled then. Once we get rich people to stop using their money to influence politics and politicians, we can proceed to some other vices. I say we procede by eliminating each of the seven deadly sins one at a time. What do you suggest? Which sins should we get rid of first after we get rid of some of the advantages that having lots of money conveys? Success, after all, is just a matter of good intentions.
Click to expand...

Might as well have the rich buy votes. Either that or we could charge a poll tax of $50,000 to vote.
 
Last edited:
I'm not even sure what Hulka and Caturday and the rest of the band of nitwits are even arguing here. They want the Soroses and Adelsons and JPMorgans to have even more influence over American politics than they do now?
 
WakeandBake said:
your mom understood the term work and the value of a certain skill just last night, Hulka my dear boy. I'm sure she taught you well, too.

I think nothing of the sort. I was one of those people strapped to a desk for 60+ hours a week for 17 years. Now I own a small business and am strapped to my work for basically my entire day/week, and I am taking an enormous risk with my money, and I still believe that money needs to be taken out of politics as much as possible.

Its people like you who believe that some punk kid at an investment firm who has never made anything except imaginary numbers on a chart is making some grand contribution to our economy who are fucking everything up. There is a value to investing, sure. I have an investment guy. But to believe that he somehow deserves - by simply spending money on some yes-man crumb-snatching politician to skew the rules in his favor - better treatment, is asinine.
Click to expand...

Well, since my mom passed away quite a few years ago due to cancer, it is nice to see that your classlessness and apparent necrophelia are still primary parts of your psyche.

I think we are done.

Good luck with your business.
 
PhDeac said:
Hulka, thanks for your response. Seems like your definition would include someone who is unemployed and looking for a job.
Click to expand...

Yes, I would consider that work. Improving your resume, skill set, etc. Calling/Emailing prospective employers, networking, etc.
 
Caturdayredux said:
One contributes more in taxes in a year than the other does in a lifetime while he uses less government services.
Click to expand...

*snort*

If an honest accounting were done of the value of all the subsidies and benefits that are conferred upon the financial sector by government, I would be willing to bet that the average investment banker gets more value out of government in a year than the average janitor gets in a lifetime. Investment bankers operate in an ecosystem that would not - could not - even begin to exist without the strong hand of a stable government. They owe the very existence of their livelihoods to a strong and stable market system built on the rule of law and buttressed by a universe of legal fictions created and enforced by the state.
 
WFFaithful said:
Might as well have the rich buy votes. Either that or we could charge a poll tax of $50,000 to vote.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what the rich try to do, and will continue to try to do as long as they have enough money. Elections are too important to be left to poor people. Sorry, but that's reality, whether we like it or not. And no, publicly financed elections will not solve the problem, they will just create different conditions for the rich to try to influence public policy to their advantage.

The poor have enough problems. They don't need to be further insulted by a $50,000 poll tax, which would only rub their relative helplessness in their face. So, that wouldn't and couldn't work. Even the primitive super rich would shrink back from such obvious flaunting of their power. (I know you were kidding to make a point. But I think the rich like having it the way it is. They call the shots, and the less well to do remain only slightly upset and are content with appearances.
 
Sgt Hulka said:
Well, since my mom passed away quite a few years ago due to cancer, it is nice to see that your classlessness and apparent necrophelia are still primary parts of your psyche.

I think we are done.

Good luck with your business.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry about your mom, my condolences. Of course there is no way I could've known that since you are an anonymous message board poster to me, so my classlessness is really not an issue on this matter. It was a 'your mom' joke, y'know? Thank you for your good luck wish with my business. It is kicking my ass at the moment but I am enjoying the work...

Still, I can't make heads or tails of what your point is. How does your broad definition of work counter my point? It seems to support it....
 
sailordeac said:
Which is exactly what the rich try to do, and will continue to try to do as long as they have enough money. Elections are too important to be left to poor people. Sorry, but that's reality, whether we like it or not. And no, publicly financed elections will not solve the problem, they will just create different conditions for the rich to try to influence public policy to their advantage.

The poor have enough problems. They don't need to be further insulted by a $50,000 poll tax, which would only rub their relative helplessness in their face. So, that wouldn't and couldn't work. Even the primitive super rich would shrink back from such obvious flaunting of their power. (I know you were kidding to make a point. But I think the rich like having it the way it is. They call the shots, and the less well to do remain only slightly upset and are content with appearances.
Click to expand...

huh? Elections are too important for janitors, maids, taxi drivers, landscapers, PC techs, and shoe salesmen? what the fuck are you talking about?
 
Deacon923 said:
*snort*

If an honest accounting were done of the value of all the subsidies and benefits that are conferred upon the financial sector by government, I would be willing to bet that the average investment banker gets more value out of government in a year than the average janitor gets in a lifetime. Investment bankers operate in an ecosystem that would not - could not - even begin to exist without the strong hand of a stable government. They owe the very existence of their livelihoods to a strong and stable market system built on the rule of law and buttressed by a universe of legal fictions created and enforced by the state.
Click to expand...

Very good post.
 
sailordeac said:
The attitude of the rich, they think elections are too important to be left to poor people.
Click to expand...

Too important wrt their economic interests. That is a problem that limits on campaign finance can keep in check, no? There was a time in America when laborers had political sway you know
 
WFFaithful said:
It is more likely that no candidate represents the best interests of the common folk as all candidates are tied to the money needed for an election. Obama is a perfect example.
Click to expand...

Agreed. That is what I was trying to reflect in my next post.
 
Deacon923 said:
*snort*

If an honest accounting were done of the value of all the subsidies and benefits that are conferred upon the financial sector by government, I would be willing to bet that the average investment banker gets more value out of government in a year than the average janitor gets in a lifetime. Investment bankers operate in an ecosystem that would not - could not - even begin to exist without the strong hand of a stable government. They owe the very existence of their livelihoods to a strong and stable market system built on the rule of law and buttressed by a universe of legal fictions created and enforced by the state.
Click to expand...

Very true. Without the full faith and credit of the US Government a lot of Wall Street would be unemployed right now.
 
WakeandBake said:
Too important wrt their economic interests. That is a problem that limits on campaign finance can keep in check, no? There was a time in America when laborers had political sway you know
Click to expand...

Honestly Bake, do you think that the rich are going to be stopped from using their money to buy political influence if political parties and their election campaigns are funded by tax money?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top