361–370 of 382 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Marx saw this problem 100 years ago. Democracy under capitalism is just a mechanism for settling disputes among the ruling class.
As opposed to democracy under one party communist rule? Who cares what Marx said, when we have history of his ideas being tried in Russia, China, North Korea, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I prefer those with more resources to have more say over the running of our country. On average in a free market those with more resources are better organized and know what’s best for the country. Furthermore the structure of society should be organized to help those that know what they are doing. An unpopular opinion however.
> On average in a free market those with more resources are better organized and know what’s best for the country. They know what is best for them. It has nothing to do with what is best for the country. As you are advocating for an oligarchy, I suggest you take a look at all the oligarchies around the world: don't you notice that they are all, without exception, terrible places to live, and not even good places for…
If you seized all of Bill Gates’ wealth it would fund the USA for 3 months. Do you think making Gates a pauper to fund our profligate politicians is more effective than letting Gates keep his wealth and invest as he sees fit?
I would argue Bill Gates is 10000x a better allocator of resources than the government. So maybe let him keep his wealth considering the government prints his net worth every month.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the job pays 3x the median salary to maintain two homes, maybe it will get politicians to consider the needs of the constituents who maintain one home on the median salary.
If you want the people who make the rules we must live by to be constrained by the median salary, then you're begging for them to be utterly incompetent people as anyone competent will not take such a low paying job when they can easily make far more on the market. Like it or not, labor is a market and you must pay competitively for the best, and you want the best in congress, not the median. 174k is low pay for top…
I’d much prefer the teachers and organizers be elected to Congress than the bankers and lobbyists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I could not afford my life on a senator's pay. Not even close. Couldn't take the job even if it was offered to me on a silver platter. President's pay comes with housing so my family could probably make that work, would be belt tightening--especially because I'd be on the hook for the food in state dinners and such. Not that I think anyone wants me to be a senator or the president but rather I couldn't afford to be.…
I'm betting your first book deal (could be ghostwritten) would more than make up for the discrepancy. You might also invest in a hotel down the street and suggest foreign dignitaries stay there. Or employ your kids who can do the same! So many good ways to more than make up the salary drop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't this be solved rather easily by prohibiting fund raising and using tax dollars to finance campaigns? Everyone gets the same budget? That means money has no sway over politicians and money can't influence the result unfairly.
Would you enforce that on “friends of the campaign” as well? E.g. Political Action Committees. John Jackson is running for political office using only public money. However, Big Titanium Inc. creates the privately run and funded “Friends of John Jackson” organization that is entirely unaffiliated with John Jackson but nevertheless runs pro-John Jackson ads in TV.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't this be solved rather easily by prohibiting fund raising and using tax dollars to finance campaigns? Everyone gets the same budget? That means money has no sway over politicians and money can't influence the result unfairly.
That would presumably require a Constitutional amendment to carve out an exception in the 1st Amendment. So not easy. https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/citizens-uni...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't this be solved rather easily by prohibiting fund raising and using tax dollars to finance campaigns? Everyone gets the same budget? That means money has no sway over politicians and money can't influence the result unfairly.
Unless Citizens United is overturned, this would take a constitutional amendment, "money is speech" per that Supreme Court verdict and so... > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. So t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. Seems like they spend more than one (or two) orders of magnitude more than the salary of the job to get the job.
Are we seeing a change to that with folks like AOC, MTG, Boebert, ect? AFAIK, none of them were wealthy by any means.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Getting money out of politics would be a great reform (removing lobbyists, campaign finance reform, etc.). It also strikes me as almost impossible to implement. It's like getting the president of a company to switch to system whereby leadership is elected by the workers. It's all risk and low reward for them . However, another political reform I've toyed with in my head is secret voting in the House and the Senate. W…
In the US, wouldn't that require a constitutional amendment? I thought Citizens United declared money to be free speech (paraphrasing) .