To what extent has democracy in the US been subverted by money?

[garbon]

I also don't see how the age matters.  It comes up every year a budget is to be passed.

Age matters as presumably they didn't suddenly need billions to keep that around now. Yi had been asking what it was that the rich were getting with the increase in money they have spent, so a good example would not be something they have had for decades unless it was something that is at risk.

[Berkut]

I also don't see how the age matters.  It comes up every year a budget is to be passed.

Age matters as presumably they didn't suddenly need billions to keep that around now. Yi had been asking what it was that the rich were getting with the increase in money they have spent, so a good example would not be something they have had for decades unless it was something that is at risk.

Yi's argument is almost amazing in it's stubborn obstinance.

He is basically arguing that the rich spend hundreds of millions of dollars, but get nothing in return. He would have us believe that they are basically morons, who throw their money into contributions to politicians, and expect and get no return on that investment.

Oh? And the fact that those same rich corporations are getting richer and richer all the time while the political system does nothing to address the issue? And the USSC comes out and states definitively that this is all working just as intended?

Coincidence.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Trickle down works, dammit!  Its just not that obvious. 

I've never argued for trickle down. If your goal is more equality of result the best method to achieve that is income redistribution. I simply don't see it as a problem for a small portion of society to get manifestly wealthy as long as the quality of life and standard of living is acceptable and even improving for the rest (and it has been, despite liberal propaganda.)

[OttoVonBismarck]

I have pretty much arrived at the conclusion that this is the only possible recourse.

Congress certainly isn't going to fix it.

And how would it be fixed in Berkut-land?

[Valmy]

I've never argued for trickle down. If your goal is more equality of result the best method to achieve that is income redistribution. I simply don't see it as a problem for a small portion of society to get manifestly wealthy as long as the quality of life and standard of living is acceptable and even improving for the rest (and it has been, despite liberal propaganda.)

I have never heard liberal propaganda that our standard of living is falling.  But you seem to miss the point.  It is no big deal if the elite of society are managing things, they always did in the past.  But those people are not really doing so.  We are talking about huge interest groups and foreign governments advancing their interests which are not those of the country at large.  The problem is how the government is run not that people are starving in the streets or whatever.  Surely people can have a decent quality of life and the government still have problems that need correcting.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I have never heard liberal propaganda that our standard of living is falling.  But you seem to miss the point.  It is no big deal if the elite of society are managing things, they always did in the past.  But those people are not really doing so.  We are talking about huge interest groups and foreign governments advancing their interests which are not those of the country at large.

Oh I see, the myth that if more than one person acts for the same cause they become a strange alien intellect bent on world domination. I'm glad there was never anything like that from the moment the ink was dry on the constitution.

Foreign governments are not meaningfully controlling our democracy, that's mostly a recreational outrage type claim based on relatively minor Chinese money filtering in here and there.

[frunk]

Trickle down works, dammit!  Its just not that obvious. 

I've never argued for trickle down. If your goal is more equality of result the best method to achieve that is income redistribution. I simply don't see it as a problem for a small portion of society to get manifestly wealthy as long as the quality of life and standard of living is acceptable and even improving for the rest (and it has been, despite liberal propaganda.)

Quality of life is generally improving, primarily due to cheaper commodities and easy credit.  It is not improving due to better paying jobs for the bulk of the population, or more savings/wealth.

[Berkut]

I have pretty much arrived at the conclusion that this is the only possible recourse.

Congress certainly isn't going to fix it.

And how would it be fixed in Berkut-land?

Amendment to the Constitution specifying that corporations and unions are not people, and do not have the rights of people.

Followed by meaningful campaign finance reform.

[Berkut]

I have never heard liberal propaganda that our standard of living is falling.  But you seem to miss the point.  It is no big deal if the elite of society are managing things, they always did in the past.  But those people are not really doing so.  We are talking about huge interest groups and foreign governments advancing their interests which are not those of the country at large.

Oh I see, the myth that if more than one person acts for the same cause they become a strange alien intellect bent on world domination. I'm glad there was never anything like that from the moment the ink was dry on the constitution.

Foreign governments are not meaningfully controlling our democracy, that's mostly a recreational outrage type claim based on relatively minor Chinese money filtering in here and there.

Foreign governments probably are not controlling our democracy, but mostly because we don't have a democracy, since the people are not controlling things either, and the politicians are no longer acting in the interests of the people who elect them, but rather in the interests of the "people" who fund them.

[The Minsky Moment]

Age matters as presumably they didn't suddenly need billions to keep that around now. Yi had been asking what it was that the rich were getting with the increase in money they have spent, so a good example would not be something they have had for decades unless it was something that is at risk.

When the preferential treatment of CI first began, the PE industry was pretty small and the amounts not significant.  But it has grown to become much bigger.  The issue never even reached the attention of Congress until around 2007.  Since that time there have been legislative initiatives raised virtually every year and every time they get tanked.

[crazy canuck]

Trickle down works, dammit!  Its just not that obvious. 

I've never argued for trickle down. If your goal is more equality of result the best method to achieve that is income redistribution. I simply don't see it as a problem for a small portion of society to get manifestly wealthy as long as the quality of life and standard of living is acceptable and even improving for the rest (and it has been, despite liberal propaganda.)

My comment wasn't directed at you. 

I agree with you. The issue becomes one of degree of concentration of wealth and the lack of social mobility. The goal isnt to dismantle the capitalist system (sorry Ide).  The goal is to make it function in a manner that provides social mobility based on merit not whether one is born into a family who has the resouces to fund a successful trajectory for their children.

[Valmy]

Oh I see, the myth that if more than one person acts for the same cause they become a strange alien intellect bent on world domination. I'm glad there was never anything like that from the moment the ink was dry on the constitution.

Um no.  I am not attacking any of these entities at all.  They are not evil and are doing nothing wrong, they are acting in their interests in a way they should be expected.  I am not going to waste my time being angry at dogs for barking.

Foreign governments are not meaningfully controlling our democracy, that's mostly a recreational outrage type claim based on relatively minor Chinese money filtering in here and there.

I am not outraged by it at all.  They have an easy way to advance their interests, of course they are going to use it.  It is the system that is outrageous not the players.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Amendment to the Constitution specifying that corporations and unions are not people, and do not have the rights of people.

How do you feel corporations should be structured? Should they have property rights, contract rights?

Followed by meaningful campaign finance reform.

Why not do something effective instead of nonsense laws that will never work?

[OttoVonBismarck]

I'm just curious, there's a website that actually breaks down all the PAC spending and such in the 2012 election cycle. How many of you have actually looked at it, and how many of you have any conception of where the real money is coming from? I'm guessing not many of you--because it's really not corporations. Corporations do a lot of small potatoes lobbying in very specific areas relative to their business. But this is primarily to influence persons already elected, and isn't in the form of big campaign contributions or PAC donations. The vast majority of that money comes from individuals, and PAC money a few large donors are disproportionately represented.

There's a difference to me between trying to influence the outcome of a campaign versus trying to influence persons already elected, which is primarily the type of political activity corporations are involved in. The latter is very hard to prevent, because lobbying money is consumed in meetings, "events" to which persons of influence are invited to that happen to serve $200 plates of food and $500 bottles of wine etc. You have to actually pass some pretty draconian freedom of movement/association/etc laws directed at public officials to restrict that stuff.

And when I say small potatoes, I've seen some Fortune 500 companies on the very top of the lobbying dollars amount who spend less than 1% of their total profits on lobbying (GE from 2008-2012 for example was the biggest lobbyist, and spent 0.4% of its profits on lobbying over that period.) Wal-Mart might spend a few million dollars a year on lobbying. It's really not as much as you guys make it out to be.

[alfred russel]

I think you missed the point.  The legislative reforms he is talking about were an attempt keep the US more egalitarian than Europe.  As the 20th century progressed the US completely abandoned that notion and began cutting taxes for the most wealthy and even reduced estate taxes to the point of abolishing them.  iirc estate taxes in the US were just recently reintroduced (and as I understand it would be abolished again if the Republicans got their way).  As a result wealth concentration in the upper 1% has become extreme and inequality in the US has become greater than it was in 19th century Europe.

Over the past 100 years, taxes have gone both up and down, but the overwhelming trend has been to increase them.

Also, the comparison to Europe really significantly changed after the world wars and communism. Those were very effective mechanisms to reduce old money and promote egalitarianism in europe.