The US is an Oligarchy

[waywardgs]

http://www.businessinsider.com/major-study-finds-that-the-us-is-an-oligarchy-2014-4

"The U.S. government does not represent the interests of the majority of the country's citizens, but is instead ruled by those of the rich and powerful, a new study from Princeton and Northwestern universities has concluded.

The report, "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" (PDF), used extensive policy data collected between 1981 and 2002 to empirically determine the state of the U.S. political system.

After sifting through nearly 1,800 U.S. policies enacted in that period and comparing them to the expressed preferences of average Americans (50th percentile of income), affluent Americans (90th percentile), and large special interests groups, researchers concluded that the U.S. is dominated by its economic elite."

No. Fucking. Way.

[cwolff]

http://www.businessinsider.com/major-study-finds-that-the-us-is-an-oligarchy-2014-4

"The U.S. government does not represent the interests of the majority of the country's citizens, but is instead ruled by those of the rich and powerful, a new study from Princeton and Northwestern universities has concluded.

The report, "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" (PDF), used extensive policy data collected between 1981 and 2002 to empirically determine the state of the U.S. political system.

After sifting through nearly 1,800 U.S. policies enacted in that period and comparing them to the expressed preferences of average Americans (50th percentile of income), affluent Americans (90th percentile), and large special interests groups, researchers concluded that the U.S. is dominated by its economic elite."

No. Fucking. Way.

Not exactly a big surprise right?

[Latrinsorm]

Not at all, the US is merely a republic.

[Thondalar]

Not at all, the US is merely a republic.

It used to be.

[Back]

This country has always been an Oligarchy. It was set up as an Oligarchy. I learned that in elementary politics.

[Latrinsorm]

It used to be.Would you care to tell the class about Shays' Rebellion in this context?

[Thondalar]

Would you care to tell the class about Shays' Rebellion in this context?

We were still a Republic after the Philadelphia Convention.

Nice try, though.

[cwolff]

More on the looming Oligarchy.


“What Piketty’s really done now is he said, ‘Even those of you who talk about the 1 percent, you don’t really get what’s going on.’ He’s telling us that we are on the road not just to a highly unequal society, but to a society of an oligarchy. A society of inherited wealth.”

Krugman adds: “We’re seeing inequalities that will be transferred across generations. We are becoming very much the kind of society we imagined we’re nothing like.”

article (http://billmoyers.com/episode/what-the-1-dont-want-you-to-know-2/)

[Latrinsorm]

"on the road" implies it hasn't always been that way.

[cwolff]

"on the road" implies it hasn't always been that way.

It does not, and we are not. In fact the OP seems to say that we elect representatives who vote for us and they happen to vote with big business. Is that not the definition of a republic? Not voting for big business, but that we send people out to legislate in our stead.

[waywardgs]

More on the looming Oligarchy.

Ordering Piketty's book now.

[cwolff]

Ordering Piketty's book now.

Cool. Let me know what you think. I'm seeing if I can't download it from the library.

[Warriorbird]

Eh. Just the left wing equivalent of all the "You're doomed! Buy gold!" ads on conservative media.

[waywardgs]

Eh. Just the left wing equivalent of all the "You're doomed! Buy gold!" ads on conservative media.

I'm not so sure a bunch of opportunistic sky-is-falling gold smelters have as much intellectual clout as some of these folks.

[Warriorbird]

I'm not so sure a bunch of opportunistic sky-is-falling gold smelters have as much intellectual clout as some of these folks.

It's just really easy to argue we've ALWAYS been an oligarchy.

[cwolff]

It's just really easy to argue we've ALWAYS been an oligarchy.

How are we defining terms? Can a society be an Oligarchy and a Republic at the same time? Or are we a republic with oligarchic tendencies?

[Thondalar]

How are we defining terms? Can a society be an Oligarchy and a Republic at the same time? Or are we a republic with oligarchic tendencies?

The fact is, we're not an oligarchy and never have been, because there are set ways within our governmental structure for citizens to change the government with what is effectively a majority vote.

That we're too lazy and/or ignorant and/or never actually have a big enough majority that can agree on anything doesn't make us an oligarchy. It means we've become complacent letting the fat cats in Washington make decisions for us.

[waywardgs]

The fact is, we're not an oligarchy and never have been, because there are set ways within our governmental structure for citizens to change the government with what is effectively a majority vote.

That we're too lazy and/or ignorant and/or never actually have a big enough majority that can agree on anything doesn't make us an oligarchy. It means we've become complacent letting the fat cats in Washington make decisions for us.

While this is true, it doesn't change the result. An effective oligarchy is the same as a defined oligarchy.

[cwolff]

The fact is, we're not an oligarchy and never have been, because there are set ways within our governmental structure for citizens to change the government with what is effectively a majority vote.

That we're too lazy and/or ignorant and/or never actually have a big enough majority that can agree on anything doesn't make us an oligarchy. It means we've become complacent letting the fat cats in Washington make decisions for us.

What about the electoral college? What's that say about Oligarchy?

[Thondalar]

While this is true, it doesn't change the result. An effective oligarchy is the same as a defined oligarchy.

Well yes, but they require different methods to fix.

[Thondalar]

What about the electoral college? What's that say about Oligarchy?

The electoral college is one of the things keeping our Republic from becoming a true Democracy, something the forefathers were thankfully intelligent and wise enough to do their best to prevent.

[cwolff]

The electoral college is one of the things keeping our Republic from becoming a true Democracy, something the forefathers were thankfully intelligent and wise enough to do their best to prevent.

Well, with or without the college, we're still a republic. We're still electing people to represent us in the power positions.

[Thondalar]

Well, with or without the college, we're still a republic. We're still electing people to represent us in the power positions.

That's not what defines a Republic.

[cwolff]

That's not what defines a Republic.

This is the what I'm thinking of when I say that:


With pure democracy, he means a system in which every citizen votes directly for laws, and, with republic, he intends a society in which citizens vote for an elite of representatives who then vote for laws. He indicates that the voice of the people pronounced by a body of representatives is more conformable to the interest of the community, since, again, common people’s decisions are affected by their self-interest.

From wikipedia and attributed to Madison.

[Warriorbird]

While this is true, it doesn't change the result. An effective oligarchy is the same as a defined oligarchy.

Pretty much. I'm thankful that the Progressives gave us a few tools but they're rarely likely to be used.

[cwolff]

This is why we can't have nice things. Someone always abuses their freedoms, takes things too far and then we've got to write clumsy laws that no one likes. These guys are planning to spend more than either the dems or republicans on the mid-terms. Two Guys!


BOSTON (AP) — A group backed by the conservative Koch (kohk) Brothers plans to spend more than $125 million on the November elections.

The investment marks a significant escalation for the Koch Brothers' main campaign arm. Americans For Prosperity plans to increase television advertising across the country, improve voter data collection and strengthen its 31-state ground operation.


A senior official with direct knowledge of the plans confirms the election blueprint. It's outlined in a memo to Republican donors this spring. The official confirms the memo's authenticity but isn't authorized to discuss it publicly. Source (http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/politics/article/Offical-Koch-Brothers-plan-125m-midterm-push-5465823.php)

[Parkbandit]

NOT THE KOCH (KOHK) BROTHERS!!! NOOOOO!!O!O!O!O!!!!!

I wonder what their spending on elections compares to say.. George Soros or Unions.

[Warriorbird]

NOT THE KOCH (KOHK) BROTHERS!!! NOOOOO!!O!O!O!O!!!!!

I wonder what their spending on elections compares to say.. George Soros or Unions.

Thank Citizens United!

[Tgo01]

Someone always abuses their freedoms? Is that a thing?

"Man that guy votes in each and every fucking election; even the ones no one cares about like sheriff! What a dick!"

[Kembal]

NOT THE KOCH (KOHK) BROTHERS!!! NOOOOO!!O!O!O!O!!!!!

I wonder what their spending on elections compares to say.. George Soros or Unions.

Including spending on Super PACs and dark money 527/501(c)(4) groups, they outspent the unions in 2012. I think there's a WSJ article that says otherwise, but then you see a caveat that the data they used didn't include super PACs or dark money, which is pretty useless.

[cwolff]

Including spending on Super PACs and dark money 527/501(c)(4) groups, they outspent the unions in 2012. I think there's a WSJ article that says otherwise, but then you see a caveat that the data they used didn't include super PACs or dark money, which is pretty useless.

Why compare them to unions anyway? There's about 14 million union members in the U.S. About 11% of all workers. That's a lot of people. More than the populations of some states.

[Tgo01]

Why compare them to unions anyway?

True. They are private citizens, they can spend their money how they see fit, yes?

I thought Citizens United just made it so corporations and unions could have more flexibility in how they do things. Technically isn't that a good thing when combating people like the Koch Brothers?

[Warriorbird]

True. They are private citizens, they can spend their money how they see fit, yes?

I thought Citizens United just made it so corporations and unions could have more flexibility in how they do things. Technically isn't that a good thing when combating people like the Koch Brothers?

In essence, Citizens United tremendously empowered people that both parties don't like.

[Latrinsorm]

NOT THE KOCH (KOHK) BROTHERS!!! NOOOOO!!O!O!O!O!!!!!

I wonder what their spending on elections compares to say.. George Soros or Unions.This is a really funny comment if you think about it: two enormously wealthy people potentially(!) overpowered by millions of union members.

Anyway, Soros hasn't made his plans for 2016 public yet, so we'll see. A bunch of other hyperrich on both sides of the aisle have, and $100m seems to be the magic number.

[Parkbandit]

Why compare them to unions anyway? There's about 14 million union members in the U.S. About 11% of all workers. That's a lot of people. More than the populations of some states.

Wait.. do the union members get to decide how their dues are being politically distributed.. or is it all collected and then a few people at the top of the union get to contribute the money they way they see fit.

I don't see a big difference.

[Warriorbird]

Wait.. do the union members get to decide how their dues are being politically distributed.. or is it all collected and then a few people at the top of the union get to contribute the money they way they see fit.

I don't see a big difference.

Wow. Sounds like you shouldn't object to unions now.

[Parkbandit]

Wow. Sounds like you shouldn't object to unions now.

So, now that they contribute to political campaigns, that means that I should now support unions?

You make zero sense.

[Warriorbird]

So, now that they contribute to political campaigns, that means that I should now support unions?

You make zero sense.

You just said their political actions are no different than the Koch Brothers, who you approve of.

[cwolff]

You just said their political actions are no different than the Koch Brothers, who you approve of.

They use unions as an example to defend the Koch's. It's party line talking point. The problem is that labor is just one sector of business. If they wanted to compare union spending in an apples to apples comparison they'd do it like this:
Labor: $$$
Finance: $$$
Health Care:$$$
Manufacturing: $$$

The whole union spending talking point they're putting forward is disingenuous. It's easy spoon feeding to the base. Intellectually it's Gerbers.

[Parkbandit]

You just said their political actions are no different than the Koch Brothers, who you approve of.

That doesn't mean that what the unions actually do is now a good thing.

[Parkbandit]

They use unions as an example to defend the Koch's. It's party line talking point. The problem is that labor is just one sector of business. If they wanted to compare union spending in an apples to apples comparison they'd do it like this:
Labor: $$$
Finance: $$$
Health Care:$$$
Manufacturing: $$$

The whole union spending talking point they're putting forward is disingenuous. It's easy spoon feeding to the base. Intellectually it's Gerbers.

It's almost as disingenuous (almost) as calling out the Koch Brothers.

Almost.

[Warriorbird]

Personally, I think Citizens United overempowers both. Few Democrats will agree with me RE: The Unions and few Republicans will agree with me RE: The Koch Brothers. There's nothing disingenuous about my stance.

[Parkbandit]

Personally, I think Citizens United overempowers both. Few Democrats will agree with me RE: The Unions and few Republicans will agree with me RE: The Koch Brothers. There's nothing disingenuous about my stance.

I didn't say there was... since I quoted cwolff's post.

And to be honest, I agree with you.

[waywardgs]

Personally, I think Citizens United overempowers both. Few Democrats will agree with me RE: The Unions and few Republicans will agree with me RE: The Koch Brothers. There's nothing disingenuous about my stance.

^

[cwolff]

^

Did you get that book yet? Was it Capital in the 21st Century?

[waywardgs]

Did you get that book yet? Was it Capital in the 21st Century?

Yeah I did but haven't started it yet.