O say can you see, the U. S. Oligarchy?

Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
O say can you see, the U. S. Oligarchy?

O say can you see, the U. S. Oligarchy?

The U. S. is on sale. Buy it while it’s hot.

O say can you see,
by the dawn's early light,
what so proudly we hailed
we now proudly renounce.
democracy

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-14SllPPLxY

Plato theorized that democracies, as they matured, evolved into oligarchies or plutocracies. We are witnessing exactly that.

When the new political election funding laws came into effect, the U. S. democratic system became an oligarchy or plutocracy. Billionaires are now buying political candidates and are in fact buying the leadership of the nation. They are now the power behind the throne and control the government and thus the people. Now, instead of working 9 to 5, Americans are working 24/7.

When did the U. S. devolve from the leading democracy of the West, to a tyranny up for sale?

Regards
DL


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4160
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Yet the new campaign

 Yet the new campaign finance laws make it possible for groups of people to pool their money to make millions for campaign advertisements. It has always been legal for a millionaire to buy as many campaign advertisements as they please with their personal money. It has always been legal for wealthy people to put all of their own money into their personal campaign, that is mostly how Ross Perot funded his campaign. The changes to campaign financing have removed power from the traditional two parties and the good old boys clubs that run them.

 

If you have two brain cells and a radio you should have noticed a dramatic increase in the amount of radio ads that are not affiliated with particular candidates and it is one of the reasons the republican primary has lasted this long. In previous years the powers that be inside the party would have eliminated the funding for the losing candidates after a couple of primaries. 

 

With less restrictions it is also far more likely that we will see a viable third party candidate. Previously, to even consider a serious third party run you had to be a billionaire because the democrat and republican parties were an oligarchy when it came to raising money. Now any interest group can raise large amounts of funds and compete. You still have a lot of work to raise the $500 million it costs to run a presidential campaign, but it is now far easier than being limited to $2000 donations while your opponents could raise $100,000 at a time because they happened to have an R or D in front of their name.

 

I suggest that you read actual campaign finance law and learn how it works rather than simply buy into the propaganda. To say that allowing more people to run advertisements and making the political ad market more accessible somehow creates an oligarchy is absurd. It was an oligarchy when the only feasible way to run a national ad campaign required you to be a billionaire or to be approved by the leadership of the republican or democrat party. Now we are much more free and the new laws substantially weakened the traditional party structure that has had a stranglehold on our politics for well over 100 years. Which is why members of the establishment in both parties hate Citizens United- they no longer have a monopoly on determining who gets the millions.  


Greatrest I am (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for this. RegardsDL

Thanks for this.

 

Regards

DL


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for this. RegardsDL

Thanks for this.

 

Regards

DL


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Greatest I am wrote:Thanks

Greatest I am wrote:

Thanks for this.

 

Regards

DL

What does "DL" stand for? Eye-wink

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Greatest I am
Greatest I am's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2012-03-30
User is offlineOffline
Just the initials to my real

Just the initials to my real name.

It is a habit.

Regards
DL


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)