I recently read a quote that very nicely describes the difference between Obama and Romney: “Obama wants middle class Americans to go hungry, Romney wants us to starve.”
Hyperbole perhaps, but it beautifully illustrates the fact that the difference between the two candidates (and the political parties they represent) are a matter of degree, not kind. Both parties are owned by Wall Street. The liberal wing of the Democratic Party has completely knuckled under to the corporate bosses, and Congress is almost entirely populated by what are essentially employees of corporate America. The result, elections don’t matter, the result is the same, only the manner in which the corporate looting is done will differ, but either way, the corporate looking will be done.
So we have this section: Elections. But does it have any more to do with what happens economically in America than Cafe Society?
I think not.
P.S. I have put this thread in elections rather than in ATMB because it is not about how the message board works, but about how politics in America works, hence, I figured that this is the appropriate place.
The majority of Americans, 61 percent, believe that our current economic system favors the wealthy, whereas just 36 percent say our system is generally fair. (Cite, Pew Research Center, Dec. 2011).
I do not believe either party in Congress has made any real effort to pass legislation reflecting these beliefs. Obama’s Justice Dept. has simply NOT been able to jail anybody for the massive fraud associated with the economic collapse in 2008. But you go ahead and tell us about how this is the way things should be.
Who, specifically, should be jailed for fraud and what evidence do you have that fraud was committed? I’m not saying I know you’re wrong, but you’re making some pretty serious charges that you should be able to back up.
It’s a side issue, John. However, there have been allegations that some of our top investment bankers were selling mortgage-backed securities that they described as “garbage” in their corporate emails to pension fund managers. Presumably they did not describe them as “garbage” to the pension fund managers. This is old news, if you want to chew over it, chew over it elsewhere. It has little to do with the main thrust of the thread.
You can talk about how both parties are the same and both are slaves to corporate interest but as long as the country keeps doing better as a whole under Democrat rule than Republican rule i’ll continue voting for them. I am under no impression that either party has my best interests at heart but if the Bush years taught me anything it was “things can really suck a whole lot worse”.
So? There’s some tradeoff between fairness and efficiency? Note that the countries with a low Gini coefficient of national income – the ones which have taken concepts of “fairness” into account in their public economic policies – do seem to thrive. (Note that America now ranks with China in this measurement.)
To me fair implies a system governed by the rule of law, where everybody plays by the same rules. I, personally, think it is wrong to have systems where your ability to succeed is primarily governed by who you know that can give you government contracts or the relevant permits as opposed to your talent and skill. I think an undistorted market economy is fair if nothing else. The only economies that are not fair are planned economies.
Still, this is a hijack of the OP. I tend to agree that the American political system has failed in that its primary objective is no longer to serveWe The People. The incentives are screwed up, in fundraising (which drives politicians into the hands of corporate interests and unions), in lobbying (which forces politicians to vote in favor of limited interest groups instead of trying to do right by their constituancy), and in re-districting (where gerrymandering has guaranteed that those at the extremes always win making compromise and progress difficult if not impossible). These problems are endemic in both parties, and i agree that the parties are different only in degree. What we are seeing is a wholesale transfer of wealth from our citizens to corporations with government acting as the conduit. Both parties are complicit in this and neither has any incentive to stop. YMMV and all that.
What is this election about? Marginal differences in the tax rates of wealthy individuals, marginal differences in government control of healthcare, and should we turn up the war machine to 11 or just let it coast on 10.
Any deviation from this tiny spectrum is crackpottery. (Paul Ryan “slashes” the budget so it’s balanced in,gasp, 30 years so he must be an extremist) Our course is set notwithstanding this election. There are of course some who will run in here talking about Bush and Iraq and I have sympathy for this argument. The fact is that war is not out of place on the list of adventures starting some 100 years ago. If it had been perpetrated by competent warmakers it wouldn’t be among the list of grievances we hear today.
Our course is set. Deficit spending until the wheels come off.
I think they ARE going to suck a whole lot worse, no matter who gets elected. Though I grant you that Republicans are terrible at foreign policy of late and tend to get us into expensive and unnecessary wars. Plus they have a social conservative base whom they like to appease. But the big problem we have right now is economics. And both parties really are OWNED by Wall Street. A vote for either is a vote for Wall Street. I will vote for Obama in this election cycle, but after that I am through with the Democrats.
IMO the problem is that there are only two parties. The both are looking for 51% of the vote. So, the platform comes down to gays and abortion. Albeit that each of these have merits, they don’t answer the major problems in America, i,e food, healthcare, and jobs. When the republicans and democrats want to share the pie with 3rd parties, I may have a reason to vote.