A Sincere Request of Help from Those Who Disagree with My Politics

[crfriend]

The blunt point in this case is that the super-rich now own the country lock, stock, and barrel. If voting could actually change the system it wouldn't be allowed because the owners are quite happy, thank-you-very-much. The government no longer answers to the general population and hasn't since at least 2000.

What voting can do, though, is make things more miserable for us as a people. We may as well live out our lives reasonably decently, or at least as decently as possible and keep the real despots at bay who just terrorise the lower classes (because they can, so long as they don't interfere with the owners).

[moonshadow]

True, in my experience however living in a mostly conservative state, it does seem that financially speaking, my life does tend to roll easier under Republican leadership.

It would be nice if the Republican party would divorce itself from private matter [0] issues like who we are allowed to love and marry, what gender identity we may be, common sense laws around mild substances like marijuana, embrace true religious freedom (separation of Church and state)... just those few things would definitely swing me over.

You know.... just basically knock it off with the culture wars... and they'd be alright.

[0] In other words, issues that are nobody else's business anyway.

[Sinned]

There are some issues such as limiting abortion to such a limited termination date as to make the act virtually impossible and hence illegal. Now this is just an example, there are others, this is just one that's in the headlines at the moment. It's only one of their extreme positions that would stop me voting Republican if I were an American. It's a pity that you have such a binary system although Carl seems to say that it's really a unitary system.

Over here we have a largely binary ( or unitary ) system in which the two main parties are left ( Labour ) and right ( Conservative or Tory ) but since one is just as bad as the other then it doesn't really matter which is in the majority. The Tories are having a hard time because a Tory MP was caught trousering loads of cash ( not technically illegal ) and lobbying for them ( definitely illegal ). A standards organisation found him guilty and recommended 30 day suspension. Now because BoJo has allegedly broken some guidelines he wanted to disband the committee as they were due to investigate him. He did that by ordering all the Tory MPs to back him in trying to overturn the suspension. They did but it created such an opposition that BoJo did a U-turn and the MP resigned. Now BoJo is in trouble for this and the whole issue of MPs having second ( or third, or fourth.... ) jobs is being investigated. In the extreme Geoffrey Cox MP QC has been earning like £1m in legal work in addition to his £82k salary and his crisps ( chips ), Mars bars, milk, laptops on expenses. The dilemma is that the perception is that all MPs have their snouts in the pig trough so changing the pigs really doesn't change anything unless the trough is taken away. So you see that in a lot of ways we are really no better off than you Americans, only different. Carl you may be right, the aristocracy and the rich own the country ( with the exception of the few square yards I live on ). Sigh, so depressing.

[Pdxfashionpioneer]

Sorry to be the buzzkill that breaks up this pity party, but I happen to prefer to follow the FACTS.

As to voting making no difference because all politicians are the same because they are bought and paid for by the uber-rich ... Please consider:

• In the first recovery bill Pres. Biden got passed was a provision limiting the amount of an executive's salary that a corporation can declare as tax-deductible to $1 million per year. This may sound arcane, but it makes it more expensive for a corporation to pay salaries above that, which in time should put a damper on the growth of such salaries. It's a first step in reducing income and therefore wealth inequality.
  Included in the Build Back Better Bill are increases in the taxes levied against the 1% and corporations. It is also full of benefits for the poor, the working class and the middle class, in effect increasing the incomes of those classes.
  The original version of that bill included even more tax increases for the uber-rich and corporations and many more benefits for the rest of us.
  Any number of economic studies have shown that Americans as a whole have prospered more under Democratic Presidents than Republicans. Most recently a study conducted by a team of historians and economists found that starting with Franklin Roosevelt that disparity wasn't just a little, it was a lot, with the exception of Gerrald Ford. to make the comparisons meaningful they took each of the economic indicators they were considering and divided them by the number of years in each President's administration. Btw, not only was Trump's economic performance the worst, but on the most important indicators, economy went backwards during Trump's regime.
  The main drivers of inflation right now are 1) kinks in the supply chain caused by different elements of said supply chain coming back on line at different times and at different rates, 2) increase in demand because Americans have more money in their pockets and confidence in the future, hence they're fulfilling their pent-up demand for goods and 3) they're buying more goods than services because there is still plenty of hesitancy to go out and recreate.
  13 or 17 Nobel Prize-winning economists signed a letter to the President assuring him that his infrastructure and Bill Back Better Plan will decrease long-term inflation rather than increase it because the elements of those 2 bills will make the economy for efficient.

All of that said, if the US hasn't become a political oligarchy already, as Carl and plenty of well-informed observers of our social scene insist, it's too damned close for comfort. But let's be clear, that's a general statement covering the current, overall situation. We still have the best term-limiting mechanism known to humankind, the right to vote. If we use that right responsibly, that is take the time to research each candidate and vote on them based on their individual merits. When we consider a candidate, we need to recognize a few things starting with the fact that no one is perfect. In addition:
In the US, all positions are elected for fixed terms so in a known amount of time we get another bite at those apples.
For all practical purposes we have a 2-party system so voting for a person who looks great but belongs to a splinter party is a vote AGAINST the next best candidate who is in one of the major parties.
In other words, we have to accept that life is a compromise and that we have to accept that slow progress beats no progress.

Finally, if the Senate would just accept that the filibuster was an historical accident that has become an insurmountable barricade to real progress as is this nonsensical obsession with "revenue neutrality and get rid of both of them (the 2nd requires the concurrence of the House), we could start to see some real progress.

[Brad]

Anybody remember the following - control of our borders, 2% or less inflation, $2/gallon gas, lower crime rates, energy independence, peace in afghanistan, lower food prices, local businesses prospering, less civil hostility, etc. Surely you must remember. It wasn't that long ago. Those were the days.

[crfriend]

For all practical purposes we have a 2-party system so voting for a person who looks great but belongs to a splinter party is a vote AGAINST the next best candidate who is in one of the major parties.

Let's compare and contrast to another system that folded a few years ago in which open elections were held, but there was only a single candidate offered for either acceptance or rejection by the electorate. It was widely derided in the United States, but we here today are experiencing something eerily similar save that there are two chosen candidates. The end outcome is the same.

I refer, of course, to the way that the Soviet Union operated -- and it did have free and fair elections, just in a different style than we had here. Using past as prelude, the system in the old Soviet Union was remarkably similar to what we have on offer in the United States today save for the number of candidates. So, free and fair elections with entirely predictable results. Both nations; similar structure operationally. The United States produces two "acceptable candidates" which are then presented to the electorate in the name of showmanship. I look at the net result. If third parties can control which candidates are "acceptable" for presentation to the masses then they control the entire system -- even if the actual mechanism of the election proper is beyond reproach. It matters not a whit which one "wins", the controllers get their candidate.

In other words, we have to accept that life is a compromise and that we have to accept that slow progress beats no progress.

"Here, meet the new boss // same as the old boss. // We won't get fooled again." Except that we fall for it Every Time.

Finally, if the Senate would just accept that the filibuster was an historical accident that has become an insurmountable barricade to real progress as is this nonsensical obsession with "revenue neutrality and get rid of both of them (the 2nd requires the concurrence of the House), we could start to see some real progress.

The filibuster is going nowhere because it's too important a tool to keep the little guy's eyes off what's really going on, and the notion of "revenue neutrality" dates back the very bad old days of the Reagan regime when it was driven home that governments Must Be Run Like Businesses. Save for the fact that businesses exist for the sole purpose of making money and governments exist to help look after the general welfare and security of societies.

[Freedomforall]

For all practical purposes we have a 2-party system so voting for a person who looks great but belongs to a splinter party is a vote AGAINST the next best candidate who is in one of the major parties.

Let's compare and contrast to another system that folded a few years ago in which open elections were held, but there was only a single candidate offered for either acceptance or rejection by the electorate. It was widely derided in the United States, but we here today are experiencing something eerily similar save that there are two chosen candidates. The end outcome is the same.


The filibuster is going nowhere because it's too important a tool to keep the little guy's eyes off what's really going on, and the notion of "revenue neutrality" dates back the very bad old days of the Reagan regime when it was driven home that governments Must Be Run Like Businesses. Save for the fact that businesses exist for the sole purpose of making money and governments exist to help look after the general welfare and security of societies.

Are you counting nonprofits in the businesses that exists only to make money?

[Faldaguy]

by Freedomforall » Fri Nov 12, 2021 8:16 pm

the Reagan regime when it was driven home that governments Must Be Run Like Businesses. Save for the fact that businesses exist for the sole purpose of making money and governments exist to help look after the general welfare and security of societies.

Are you counting nonprofits in the businesses that exists only to make money?

The question was not directed to me; so I'll not reply -- but add that a large number of so-called Non Profits are merely a tax dodge. The CEO's at some of these are paid enormous salaries; the amount of dollars going to "program" vs fund raising for the organization can be huge --just recently several Thump fundraising organizations have got their fingers slapped or court orders for being blatant scams raising millions for themselves and nothing for program. Dark money hedges. NPO and NGO are too often given a "Pass" card without looking at the reality.

PDX, I think you are too optimistic -- some of the programs mentioned are but tidy framing of titles and intent to make the progressives happy -- but the reality of their actual impact and scope is paltry compared to the bulk of the dollars still going to support the corporate elite and well-healed. I'd like to believe it is offered with integrity, but suspect it is only window dressing -- kind of like us!

[crfriend]

Are you counting nonprofits in the businesses that exists only to make money?

That depends solely on how the things are run. I've seen a few that were exemplars of transparency and efficiency, but I've seen a whole lot more that were cash cows and made the owners very, very rich whilst not doing all that much of what their charters were.

[Jim]

Are you counting nonprofits in the businesses that exists only to make money?

That depends solely on how the things are run. I've seen a few that were exemplars of transparency and efficiency, but I've seen a whole lot more that were cash cows and made the owners very, very rich whilst not doing all that much of what their charters were.

I'm the secretary-treasurer of a small non-profit. We have over $7000 in the bank and are discussing how to budget it. Everyone is a volunteer; none of us get any money from it except to partially repay expenses.

[Faldaguy]

by Jim » Sat Nov 13, 2021 8:17 am

I'm the secretary-treasurer of a small non-profit. We have over $7000 in the bank and are discussing how to budget it. Everyone is a volunteer; none of us get any money from it except to partially repay expenses.

Hey Jim, Take a look at the NRA -- those guys know how to fill their pockets; maybe you could emulate them with the NFRA -National Fishing Rod Association -- right lure and a good catch?

[Jim]

by Jim » Sat Nov 13, 2021 8:17 am

I'm the secretary-treasurer of a small non-profit. We have over $7000 in the bank and are discussing how to budget it. Everyone is a volunteer; none of us get any money from it except to partially repay expenses.

Hey Jim, Take a look at the NRA -- those guys know how to fill their pockets; maybe you could emulate them with the NFRA -National Fishing Rod Association -- right lure and a good catch?

Sorry, but we are an ODD group that's not into the money thing. Some of us have a graduate school education and have lived our lives mostly below minimum wage by choice. That's weird!

[Faldaguy]

by Jim » Sat Nov 13, 2021 8:01 pm

Sorry, but we are an ODD group that's not into the money thing.

ODD -- Oppositional Defiant Disorder -- seems fitting, for this group too!