Quote Originally Posted by Static_Martyr View Post
Yes, money controls the system. More directly, money controls the flow of information --- buying ads costs money, buying airtime costs money, buying internet URLs and radio plugs costs money. The internet --- which most people just assume is free --- also costs money to operate, and is run largely by corporations with a profit motive. Running a campaign costs money, getting your name out there costs money, and defending yourself against allegations costs money --- it doesn't matter how genuine and good your position is, if the other guy is the one who gets to paint the public image of you. People only have whatever information you or your opponent release about yourself, and if your opponent is in control of what people know about you (because he or she has more money to spend disseminating that information), then you're at a severe disadvantage. You can point out that people vote, and therefore it's all the people's fault, but the people only vote based on the information they have, and if very rich people are spending billions of dollars disseminating conflicting information (and otherwise doing everything they can to obfuscate the issues), it makes it very difficult for a voter to make informed decisions.

Remember, 85% of campaigns are won by the candidate with more money and more endorsements:
And the reasons corporation spend so much money is stupid amount of power we have given to them.

I will agree however, that it is sad that the voting populace is so poorly educated in history and economics, that the election system has devolved to a popularity contest.

Libertarians tend to dismiss this aspect of the equation, because they think information is cheap and easy to come by --- like fundamentalist religious people, they are quick to say, "Alex Jones and Glenn Beck told you the truth, so why didn't you listen?", and if you don't pay unquestioning loyalty unto such personalities, then you're just "looking away from the truth." Another reason I despise libertarians as a whole --- they don't seem to give much of a flip about whether their information is genuine or not, they only care that it's what they want to hear. I'm a bit of a skeptic myself, and so even if I hear something I *want* to believe, I still feel the need to follow through and make sure it's real, and not just settle for a confirmation bias.
Good to know. I don't know who Alex Jones is, and Glenn Beck is a tool.



Get a feel for some nuance, bruh. Where did I say anything about politicians being the good guys, or deserving more power? They're just as much to blame for this (for taking donations from special interest groups, and pandering to them instead of the people) as corporations and special interest groups are.
what is bruh?
I agree, thats why I would rather have strong states, as the country was founded with, and existed until the early 1900's with. It is much easier to keep tabs on, and remove state politicians than federal.

There were several states in our union that had to pass amendments to their state constitutions because corporations owned the state government. Corporate corruption has been around as long as corporations and governments have existed; this predates America by a longshot.
Thats where it should happen, at the state level. Also many of these could have been fixed with small changes in our court system.


You are completely wrong. Social Security is paid for, in full, completely, by the Social Security tax levied off of every single working American's income tax payment, and off of a certain (low) percentage of corporate tax revenue. It is paid for beforehand, it takes no money from any other government program, and it has nothing to do with the deficit (don't believe me? Ask Ronald Reagan, that famed "liberal fascist" what-have-you).
LOL,

Really? Have you read the reports put out by the Social Security Administration? Also, you may want to look at the definition of a ponzi scheme, this is where your skepticism will really pay off.



There's your problem. "The Fiscal Cliff" is a Republican libertarian fantasy. It's a fiscal hill. All that will happen is some automatic defense spending cuts will go into effect (which is good --- none of those cuts actually come from support for troops or necessities, but rather wasteful spending on military contractors, for things like building planes that the Air Force didn't request and that won't be used), and some corporate tax rates will return to the levels they used to be at before Bush Jr. was elected; it's a fallacy that this money will be "taken out of the economy" because it's going towards higher taxes for corporations making over $200,000/year, which (according to libertarians and Republicans) is going towards social programs anyway, which primarily affect the middle class, which means the middle class will have increased purchasing power, which means the economy will be stronger. You've fallen for the sham hook, line and sinker:
Your right, what the news calls the fiscal cliff, isn't the real problem, the real problem comes when interest payment on the national debt become so high that we have to debase our currency further, and piss off our debtors.

I am not a believer in Keynes, I don't think taking money from someone, and giving it to someone else (especially when the government decides who deserves it more), is going to strengthen the economy.


Ah, the "perspective fallacy." In reality, what you point out here is a fundamental flaw of *any* heirarchical government, be it local, district, state, federal or international: the National government makes promises it can't deliver, so it borrows from foreign countries, okay; the Federal government makes promises at the state level that it can't deliver, so it borrows from other states; if we had states and no federal government, states would make decisions at the district level that it couldn't deliver, and so it would borrow from other districts, and the districts would have the same complaints about the state government that you have now about the federal government; if we had only districts, then the districts would make promises at the local and city level that it couldn't deliver, and it would just borrow from other local areas.
The Federal government would/could not make promises at the state level. and at the state level, if another state is stupid enough to make that loan, it will suffer too. Whereas right now, the Federal government is making promises (for votes) to people now, that my grandchildren, and great-grandchildren will have to pay for. How the hell is that moral? (and as an atheist,yes I believe in morals, there are dead set right and wrongs)

It's a valid criticism. But state government is subject to the same criticism.
Again, sorry to the OP, that this has gotten soooooo off topic.