Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
fordy said:
Wow, the amount of ignorance in this thread is absolutely staggering. First they say "We don't know what the movement is about", and then you state "it's had more than enough news coverage". Then you state that it's nothing but a bunch of whiners who do not want to work. That, my friends, is called prejudice.
For those lazy people who do not do their research and instead decide to assume, the occupy movement relates to government persuasion and favouritism by funds from the private sector, effectively turning the country into a plutocracy. Plus, investing in a congressman can be considered one of the best investments a wealthy investor or corporation can make, with average calculations of return at 17,000% of the original investment via subsidies etc. Somebody tell me then, if a politician mostly is under the influence of corporate "donations", which side would he stand if a conflict arose between the people and said corporations? |
The people. Because at the end of the day people are the ones who keep you in power.
You can have all the corporate money in the world... it's not going to do jack if you piss off the people.
|
Please Kasz, your post assumes the people will be just as alert to politicians' actions as the corporations. "All the corporate money in the world" won't make politicans stand by BP when they caused the disastrous Gulf of Mexico oil spill, but if it's not making headlines ...
Owning politicians means corporations can do serious damage to our country (for short-term or special interest gain) and all they have to do is keep a majority of people in the dark about it. Or shit, if they get stupid politicians (not rare), they can just buy off the next one when the first one gets run out on a rail. (I'm sure you know the big companies spend on both sides.)
|
Just as alert? No. Still alert enough though to detect anything big... which generally is the stuff that's "Against the people".
Just about anything particularly important that particularly hurts the majority of people is untouchable. All the little subsidies and things they do I don't think they see as "against the people" nor do most people. It's justified to most people and most polticians because in general they get won over by the arguement.
For example, you are one of the people who think the 2008 crisis was caused by the repeal of glass steagal right? If I remember correctly that was done during the "Banking Modernization Act" which received massive bipartisian support and had basically nobody voting against it, and in general people thinking it'd be good for the economy... and banks likely thought that as well.
Everytime there has been an attempt to get lobbying money out of Washington, at best it's failed, and othertimes it's often made things worse.
Why? Because you are essentially asking the bribed to stop themselves from being bribed.
The only way to stop bribery from the highest levels of government is to take away their power over the small things that can be influnced.
