The US is an oligarchy

[Rey C.]

The US 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, entitled Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens, used extensive policy data collected from between the years of 1981 and 2002 to empirically determine the state of the US political system.

After sifting through nearly 1,800 US 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 United States is dominated by its economic elite.

The peer-reviewed study, which will be taught at these universities in September, says: "The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."

Researchers concluded that US government policies rarely align with the the preferences of the majority of Americans, but do favour special interests and lobbying oragnisations: "When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it."

The Roman elite used panem et circenses to keep the people in line. These days it's reality TV and sports.

 

[wdoall]

I was thinking more of a plutocracy but I see your point

 

[Rey C.]

I think you're correct too, wdoall.

The combination of both plutocracy and oligarchy is called plutarchy.

So that's probably a better/more accurate term for what we have.

 

[MustBeGood]

Researchers concluded that US government policies rarely align with the the preferences of the majority of Americans, but do favour special interests and lobbying oragnisations: "When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it."

The Roman elite used panem et circenses to keep the people in line. These days it's reality TV and sports.

True and last sentence so true.

But Rey soon on this thread will come the fact twisters on some Kochsuckers counter bull shit that was done by AFP tittle, "YOUR VOTE REALLY COUNTS FOR A VOICE AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL"

Instead, with the SC dumb decision, corporations are citizens.

 

[mongo18]

I guess it's good that someone has quantified this formally, but it's still hard not to shake your head and say "well no fucking shit!"

Luckily we still have guns. As long as we have guns the government will fear us and we will be free.

 

[zeeblofowl_1969]

Back to the rhelm of pesants for everyone. Got to find a how to book to build a guillotine.......

 

[MustBeGood]

Back to the rhelm of pesants for everyone. Got to find a how to book to build a guillotine.......

:laugh:

Or dog eat dog.

 

[jonno2004]

They got good propaganda though, they are masters

 

[Rattrap]

Rey - how many people do you think you could convince to vote differently? Party-line R's and D's, I mean.

 

[MustBeGood]

Rey - how many people do you think you could convince to vote differently? Party-line R's and D's, I mean.

If we want to change the way people vote, it should be for a third party that doesn't use "smoke and mirrors" bull shit with attack ads to distract voters on how evil their opponent is, while their true attention is to win so that their party has control of both houses of congress.

 

[xfire]

If we want to change the way people vote, it should be for a third party that doesn't use "smoke and mirrors" bull shit with attack ads to distract voters on how evil their opponent is, while their true attention is to win so that their party has control of both houses of congress.

Good point, no one should forget what the "grassroots nonpartisan" teabaggers tried to pull.

 

[bobjustbob]

If we want to change the way people vote, it should be for a third party that doesn't use "smoke and mirrors" bull shit with attack ads to distract voters on how evil their opponent is, while their true attention is to win so that their party has control of both houses of congress.

Wrong. Every candidate uses smoke and mirrors. People need to vote on the local levels and not just every 4 years for a president. Not only do the locals have more control of your everyday life but they are also the ones that rise to the state and federal levels. The school boards and local councils are the places to toss the shit out before they gain more power.

 

[MustBeGood]

Wrong. Every candidate uses smoke and mirrors. People need to vote on the local levels and not just every 4 years for a president. Not only do the locals have more control of your everyday life but they are also the ones that rise to the state and federal levels. The school boards and local councils are the places to toss the shit out before they gain more power.

I agree.

But I feel each state should be more independent for the commonwealth of their population. Fed level should be reduced for national defense and interstate commerce affairs.

This would then lead to states populations choosing what they feel is the right direction for their society within the state instead of the Fed level providing one size fits all policy that leads to division.

This would lead to people moving to states that support their beliefs, but we are all together if attack.

 

[Rey C.]

Rey - how many people do you think you could convince to vote differently? Party-line R's and D's, I mean.

To be honest, maybe one... but only if I pointed a loaded firearm at him at the voting booth. I guess by our very nature, we are sheep that need to be led, even if we claim otherwise.

 

[Rattrap]

To be honest, maybe one... but only if I pointed a loaded firearm at him at the voting booth. I guess by our very nature, we are sheep that need to be led, even if we claim otherwise.

That's really too bad. I'm not sure I can do better; growing up in the west means most of my circle of friends are pretty diehard blue. The ones that aren't are more anti-red and the 'a vote for someone else automatically means a vote for red!' nonsense will be an uphill battle. I've one friend in particular who, if I could sway, would probably mean swaying at least a hundred votes from his Facebook friends alone. This man has enough charisma to get people to follow his lead pretty much anywhere.

Buuut I really don't know if I can convince him. Especially not with this year's election, where both parties will be shouting armageddon over the other party taking the Senate. Fear of the Republicans will keep my friends in line and most of them care most about the one real difference between the parties: social rights.

I'll try anyway, though. First I should probably look into my own options. I haven't the foggiest clue what's going on in my state at the moment, people pissing into reservoirs aside.

 

[Master Roshi]

the current system that is The United States of America displays many examples of corporate fascism IMO

 

[randysandy]

Looks like the conspiracy theorists were right on this one

 

[Philbert]

Looks like the conspiracy theorists were right on this one

 

[Rattrap]

In the spirit of recycling, I wanted to bring this topic back up (yes, this thread's over a year old, but no less relevent - if you haven't read it yet, read the OP) as we have ever more candidates as President of the United States.

As you're pondering which candidate you may or may not support, just keep this in mind: do they have a billionare (direct or by PAC-proxy)? Then they're very likely for the oligarchy. I.e., not you.

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...e-or-bust-who-are-rich-backers-lining-up-with

 

[Jagger69]

In the spirit of recycling, I wanted to bring this topic back up (yes, this thread's over a year old, but no less relevent - if you haven't read it yet, read the OP) as we have ever more candidates as President of the United States.

As you're pondering which candidate you may or may not support, just keep this in mind: do they have a billionare (direct or by PAC-proxy)? Then they're very likely for the oligarchy. I.e., not you.

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...e-or-bust-who-are-rich-backers-lining-up-with

Sad but true.