Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What the debt crisis should have taught you

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-11 10:50 AM
Original message
What the debt crisis should have taught you
http://www.ianwelsh.net/what-the-debt-limit-crisis-should-have-taught-you/

Representatives work for the people who pay them

That isn’t really you. They don’t become multi-millionaires on their salaries, you know. It’s their donors, the people who hire their wives and children, the people who fund their campaigns, the people who give them good jobs when they leave government. If you want Reps and Senators to work for you, you must pay them better, you must fund their campaigns (and sharply limit outside funding) and you must make it illegal for them to EVER make more money in a year than their government salary (index it to an average of the median wage, the minimum wage, and CPI). You should do what Canada used to do and give them a good pension after 6 years. You DON’T want them worrying about their next job, or what they’ll do if they’ll lose.

Point being, they don’t work for you.

This is a representative plutocracy

I believe Stirling Newberry, in the early 90s, pointed this out first. Politicians are paid by people other than you. You are the product. Think of this as the Facebook rule, if you aren’t paying for something, then you are the product. The rich pay politicians to rangle you. The amount of salary and public funding most Reps get is trivial compared to how much money they get from donors, even during their time in elected office, let alone after they leave. You are the product, not the customer, of DC politicians. They do not represent you, and you should not expect your interests to be looked after except as an afterthought. When the oligarchs all agree that something needs to be done (like cut entitlements), it will be done, no matter how unpopular it is.

This “Crisis” is what Obama wanted

Again, if he didn’t, he would have raised the debt ceiling in the lame duck. Nancy Pelosi was always very good at getting those sort of basic housekeeping bills through. It would have passed. Period. Obama wanted to cut SS and Medicare, and he needed a “crisis” in order to do it. He also needed a Republican House, which he had, because his policies during 2009 and 2010 didn’t fix the economy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LiberalLoner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-11 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
1. Wow, this really opens my eyes. Thank you. n/t K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-11 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
2. Yes it did. this debt "crisis" was very
eye opening. K/R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-11 10:58 AM
Response to Original message
3. Ingenuous inquity.
Edited on Tue Aug-02-11 11:01 AM by no_hypocrisy
What happens to the "freshmen", the newly seated officeholder? Do the Plutocrats reach him/her during their campaign and just give more when they are elected or do they wait for the oath of office before giving the first check? When the corruption actually start?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tuesday Afternoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-11 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
4. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-11 11:02 AM
Response to Original message
5. the "crisis" was leadership/management, NOT debt. this debt thing is routine in any other year nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DocMac Donating Member (429 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-11 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
6. I took the link and read the replies to the article.
Someone asks why Bernie Sanders didn't filibuster this. It's a fair question since many here are onboard with his disgust for this deal, including me.

Thanks Lorien!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indepat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-11 12:09 PM
Response to Original message
7. Thank you for stating what should be obvious to all with even a modicum of knowledge or a
lick of sense (unless, of course, blinded by the right or the man of the right). :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 12:15 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC