The Almighty US Government

[Heywood]

Soros isn't some anomaly as you suggest.

You glossed over my post where I said...

But really, we're not even talking about political affiliation. I mention the Kochs as the most prominent example in the news but there are certainly others. What we're discussing is that money is too important to politicians and how politicians are bought by lobbyists and special interests.

...but you seem to insist on changing the subject for some reason.

But hey, guess what, their money would be removed from the equation too. There are liberal lobbying groups on K street that would be disempowered by my proposed changed.

I want popular opinion, not money, to dominate American politics, no matter whether that money comes from the left or the right.

Isn't that what you want? If not, why not?

I am not convinced that money dominates elections...at least to the degree you make it out. Eric Cantor's recent defeat suggests that it doesn't.

I also realize there are two issue here which are interwoven. Free Speech and Money in politics. If I want free speech(and I do) I have to accept that money will be in politics. There is nothing wrong with you or anyone else using their wealth to spread a political message. The fact that someone has more money than you is irrelevant. You have more money than someone else. If you wanted to make the money issue "fair" to everyone you simply have to ban money politics altogether. I think you realize this which is why you wanted to originally ban all political ads. Unfortunately, banning all money from politics is a restriction on free speech.

---

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/27...n-the-pipe

Multi-millionaire Nick Hanauer is no dummy. He sees the writing on the wall.

I'd strongly suggest you read this entire piece titled "The pitchforks are coming . . . for us Plutocrats"

And what do I see in our future now?

I see pitchforks.

At the same time that people like you and me are thriving beyond the dreams of any plutocrats in history, the rest of the country—the 99.99 percent—is lagging far behind. The divide between the haves and have-nots is getting worse really, really fast. In 1980, the top 1 percent controlled about 8 percent of U.S. national income. The bottom 50 percent shared about 18 percent. Today the top 1 percent share about 20 percent; the bottom 50 percent, just 12 percent.

But the problem isn’t that we have inequality. Some inequality is intrinsic to any high-functioning capitalist economy. The problem is that inequality is at historically high levels and getting worse every day. Our country is rapidly becoming less a capitalist society and more a feudal society. Unless our policies change dramatically, the middle class will disappear, and we will be back to late 18th-century France. Before the revolution.

And so I have a message for my fellow filthy rich, for all of us who live in our gated bubble worlds: Wake up, people. It won’t last.

Multi-millionaire Nick Hanauer is a dummy. As long as the plight of poor people continue to improves, they won't be inclined to revolt. Now someone can come along and stir them up and convince them that they will be better off if they revolt...that might start a revolution but some statistic will not. The fact is, poor people now have more stuff...more wealth...than they have ever had at any time in the history of the human race. Why should you think they will revolt other than if they are incited?

Wealthy people have more 0's in their ledgers....which make for "alarming" statistics. In the end, people care about real stuff. Cars, DVDs, computers, etc,. I bet if you measured the actual real stuff people owned....the amount of stuff owned by poor people is growing faster than the amount of stuff owned by rich people.