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

[crazy canuck]

Ok you win.  Reducing a tax to 0 insnt abolishing in some odd legal sense of that word that only an American can truly appreciate.

Reducing a tax to 0 for a single tax period without the intent to do so permanently is not abolishing anything.

I am not sure what intent has to do with it.  This isnt the only piece of taxation leglislation that has sunset provisions within American law.  It seems to be the way you folks do things rather than a specific intent to reinstate the tax.

In any event I am struggling to understand the distinction quibble being raised in relation to the observation that American tax policy over the course of the 20th Century and particularly the later decades lead to American becoming the most inegalitarian nation in the Western world, and particularly in the context of the shift in attitude toward such issues.

[crazy canuck]

Don't worry, OvB's enlightened elites will, um, make sure they stay enlightened by preserving their eliteness.

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

[DGuller]

We still have elections, we still have bitter partisan fighting over everything (if anything this is worse than ever), but I am becoming more and more convinced that even the bitter partisanship is mostly all smoke and flash, without any real effect when it comes to the things that have been subverted by money.

....

Democrat/Republican? It seems to be to be a false choice. It doesn't matter which you choose - either way you are getting political figures beholden to those who put them there.

I think you are very right to be concerned, but your over-riding desire to not ever appear partisan, just for its own sake, renders your points about as insightful as KRonn's typical bellyaching.  You can indeed do something about this situation, but not if you want to be this cool kid who "sees through the partisan charade".

No, partisan infighting is not just all smoke and flash.  The very issue you are decrying, of the moneyed few removing barriers to corruption, are championed 80-20 by Republicans (and if Wall Street wasn't in New York, it would be 90-10 or worse).  Think back to all the decisions to further empower plutocrats;  they're all driven by the ideology espoused by Republicans, and almost always enacted by Republicans, in Congress or in Supreme Court.  Clinton may be an exception, as he was plutocrats' best friend, but I think it was part political strategy and part being misguided (a lot of people were in Greenspan era).

The reason this strategy of empowering plutocrats been successful is not because shadowy wealthy man have created a sideshow Democrat/Republican fight to cover up their power grab.  The reason that push has been successful is because Republicans have been very successful at pushing the hot button issues to rile up the masses, get them fired up beyond a point where they're still rational, and then convince them that more power and more money for the people with the most power and money is good for them.

[grumbler]

I think you are very right to be concerned, but your over-riding desire to not ever appear partisan, just for its own sake, renders your points about as insightful as KRonn's typical bellyaching.  You can indeed do something about this situation, but not if you want to be this cool kid who "sees through the partisan charade".

No, partisan infighting is not just all smoke and flash.  The very issue you are decrying, of the moneyed few removing barriers to corruption, are championed 80-20 by Republicans (and if Wall Street wasn't in New York, it would be 90-10 or worse).  Think back to all the decisions to further empower plutocrats;  they're all driven by the ideology espoused by Republicans, and almost always enacted by Republicans, in Congress or in Supreme Court.  Clinton may be an exception, as he was plutocrats' best friend, but I think it was part political strategy and part being misguided (a lot of people were in Greenspan era).

The reason this strategy of empowering plutocrats been successful is not because shadowy wealthy man have created a sideshow Democrat/Republican fight to cover up their power grab.  The reason that push has been successful is because Republicans have been very successful at pushing the hot button issues to rile up the masses, get them fired up beyond a point where they're still rational, and then convince them that more power and more money for the people with the most power and money is good for them.

This sounds a lot like the socialists' defense of Soviet history:  there is a bad guy, who is bad because he is just a bad guy, and it is the Republican.  This is partisan hackery at its hackiest.

The Democrats in 2008-2010 controlled a majority in the House, 60 seats in the Senate, and the White House.  They passed no legislation to curb the growth of the plutocracy, and in fact created a massive government boondoggle, the Affordable Care Act, that vastly increased the profitability of major health care corporations under the guise of increasing health care coverage. 

There may be a slight degree in difference between the approach taken towards wealth by the Democratic Party and the Republican party, but it is a far cry from the 80-20 split you claim.

[The Minsky Moment]

Normally I would agree with DG.  But this is really one of the few issues where both parties have dirty hands.  The greater tendency of Democrats to back reform in theory is undermined by their practice - it is the classic "do as I say, not as I do." 

[Berkut]

I don't disagree with the basic of what you are saying DG, but I don't think it matters - even if you are right to the extent you claim, what have the Dems done about it? Nothing - literally nothing. Instead they have just bellief on up to the trough and played the game. I don't blame them per se - they pretty much have to do it, but at the same time, so what?

I really don't think there is any useful insight to standing around blaming it on the Republicans. How is that useful, other than to further your tribal feeling of smugness? The Dems aren't going to fix it, aren't even going to try to fix it, because no matter who started the slide, they are all at the bottom together NOW.

The reason this strategy of empowering plutocrats been successful is not because shadowy wealthy man have created a sideshow Democrat/Republican fight to cover up their power grab.  The reason that push has been successful is because Republicans have been very successful at pushing the hot button issues to rile up the masses, get them fired up beyond a point where they're still rational, and then convince them that more power and more money for the people with the most power and money is good for them.

That is just bullshit. This didn't happen because a bunch of the "masses" all got mislead and accidentally asked for it to happen. The masses did not drive USSC decisions that made corporations into people. And honestly, I don't even care all that much HOW it happened, I care a lot more that people recognize that it has happened, and that it is a crisis that MUST be fixed.

And standing up on your soapbox going on about Evol Republicans will just turn it into yet another partisan pissing contest, which maybe you will feel awesome about because you are so certain how right this was all the Green Drazi's fault, but it isn't going to help convince the Green Drazi that they should work with the Purple Drazi to actually fix the fucking problem.

[DGuller]

Normally I would agree with DG.  But this is really one of the few issues where both parties have dirty hands.  The greater tendency of Democrats to back reform in theory is undermined by their practice - it is the classic "do as I say, not as I do."

Democrats definitely do not have clean hands, but at the very least they do not actively set out to make the problem worse.  If you really are concerned about this problem, then it seems logical to vote for Democrats rather than throw up your hands in despair, until Republicans offer an even less corrupt alternative.

[crazy canuck]

Normally I would agree with DG.  But this is really one of the few issues where both parties have dirty hands.  The greater tendency of Democrats to back reform in theory is undermined by their practice - it is the classic "do as I say, not as I do."

Democrats definitely do not have clean hands, but at the very least they do not actively set out to make the problem worse.  If you really are concerned about this problem, then it seems logical to vote for Democrats rather than throw up your hands in despair, until Republicans offer an even less corrupt alternative.

What happens if there is no party that will deal with the problem because of the issue Berkut has identified?

[frunk]

Democrats definitely do not have clean hands, but at the very least they do not actively set out to make the problem worse.  If you really are concerned about this problem, then it seems logical to vote for Democrats rather than throw up your hands in despair, until Republicans offer an even less corrupt alternative.

If you look beyond taxation and include subsidies/pork spending then the Democrats really aren't that much better.

[DGuller]

And standing up on your soapbox going on about Evol Republicans will just turn it into yet another partisan pissing contest, which maybe you will feel awesome about because you are so certain how right this was all the Green Drazi's fault, but it isn't going to help convince the Green Drazi that they should work with the Purple Drazi to actually fix the fucking problem.

How is it different from standing on a soapbox of congratulating yourself on lack of partisanship?

And, for the record, I'm not a Democrat partisan, regardless of what you want to believe.  I am an extreme anti-Republican, precisely because I perceived them to be a very real danger to effective democracy.  There is a difference between these two things.  I have to side with Democrats, because we live in a two-party system, but my alliance with Democrats is about as happy as the alliance of Ukrainian partisans with the Red Army.

I don't know what we can do to fix the problem, but I know what we can do to at least arrest the slide.  Not vote for Republicans for any federal spot.  Ever.  Not until they change their priorities.  I think that's a far more effective strategy than whining about the broken system.  The system isn't that broken, the voters are, and not just the partisan ones.

[DGuller]

Normally I would agree with DG.  But this is really one of the few issues where both parties have dirty hands.  The greater tendency of Democrats to back reform in theory is undermined by their practice - it is the classic "do as I say, not as I do."

Democrats definitely do not have clean hands, but at the very least they do not actively set out to make the problem worse.  If you really are concerned about this problem, then it seems logical to vote for Democrats rather than throw up your hands in despair, until Republicans offer an even less corrupt alternative.

What happens if there is no party that will deal with the problem because of the issue Berkut has identified?

What for the 99% corrupt party as opposed to 100% corrupt party, until the other party decides to bid down to 98%.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

I am not sure what intent has to do with it.  This isnt the only piece of taxation leglislation that has sunset provisions within American law.  It seems to be the way you folks do things rather than a specific intent to reinstate the tax.

Many states have annual sales tax holidays on school-related items.  Would you call such legislation a partial repeal of the sales tax?

In any event I am struggling to understand the distinction quibble being raised in relation to the observation that American tax policy over the course of the 20th Century and particularly the later decades lead to American becoming the most inegalitarian nation in the Western world, and particularly in the context of the shift in attitude toward such issues.

I'm just being pedantic.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

... I have to side with Democrats, because we live in a two-party system ...  The system isn't that broken, the voters are, and not just the partisan ones.

The system is fundamentally broken.

[crazy canuck]

Normally I would agree with DG.  But this is really one of the few issues where both parties have dirty hands.  The greater tendency of Democrats to back reform in theory is undermined by their practice - it is the classic "do as I say, not as I do."

Democrats definitely do not have clean hands, but at the very least they do not actively set out to make the problem worse.  If you really are concerned about this problem, then it seems logical to vote for Democrats rather than throw up your hands in despair, until Republicans offer an even less corrupt alternative.

What happens if there is no party that will deal with the problem because of the issue Berkut has identified?

What for the 99% corrupt party as opposed to 100% corrupt party, until the other party decides to bid down to 98%.

It seems to me the American public should attempt to push for real reform of the political system (including the way it is funded).

[DGuller]

... I have to side with Democrats, because we live in a two-party system ...  The system isn't that broken, the voters are, and not just the partisan ones.

The system is fundamentally broken.

First past the post system, which essentially leads to having two significant parties at any one time, is definitely not the most efficient system, and not one that maximizes the voters' franchise.  But we had it for 200+ years and it seems to work well enough.  It may be part of the problem, but not really THE problem.