Billionaire Politicians

There is just too much money in the system–period. Whether you’re a millionaire or a billionaire–it doesn’t make much difference. The political system’s lifeblood is money. You will have owners–like the Koch brothers, or Wall Street bankers, or oilmen.

I’m not sure how you get out of this mess. You would need these people–the system itself–to fix itself. Not gonna happen.

Or you can vote in an honest guy to shine a light on it. You know–a guy who doesn’t need money anyway–like Trump, who will “drain the swamp”. People WANT this all cleaned up in general, I think. But the system is so corrupt–including the media, that even when some of them THINK a guy is someone who will clean it up–they’re just being conned.

A guy like Trump doesn’t even care if you know it. He’s more out in the open about it than anyone I’ve ever seen. So what? What are you going to do about it?

All the Russian oligarch money flows through Putin so he can take his piece and everyone knows it. That system is beyond repair, however. Who is going to do anything about it? No one.

Same here. They just haven’t started poisoning journalists or shooting opposition leaders in the street–yet.

But the parties themselves are becoming just like the Duma. They will accept any behavior out of fear. In Russia they fear for their lives. Over here–it’s the next election.

I heard how important it was to pass a healthcare bill by the Republicans–not for the health of the American people–but because the election was in 2018 and they need something.

I heard a Republican congressman saying(in not those words) that very thing yesterday.

2018 is coming.

But what about the health of Americans–making sure a good bill is passed?

2018 is coming.

It’s sickening.

But that’s where we are. That’s America today.

And whether a billionaire is the face of it–or just some charismatic face on the way to billions–the money that flows through it makes the calls.

This will not be fixed in my lifetime–if ever.

And that’s very sad.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 2 months ago by PA Ram.

Zooming out a bit, the left, as all the leftists here know, is very diverse. It’s far, far from the monolith as painted by so many on the right. Zooming in closer, some of us hold views on this or that particular issue that will fall to the left or right of the outer left, etc. etc.

On this one, on the issue of billionaires actually existing in society? I’m guessing I’m well to the left of the majority of leftists here (and perhaps by myself), cuz I don’t think they should be allowed to exist, period. For a host of reasons. So, to me, it’s a given that what Zooey says is true. That they come with so much baggage, so many ties to corruption, they really have no business being “public” servants in the first place, but then I’d go much, much further. Cuz it’s not just those ties that are problematic, in my view.

Anyone who accrues millions or billions — outside inheritance — is already “corrupt” from a moral and ethical point of view. They can’t help but be just that. Because they can’t possibly accrue that much money unto themselves without screwing over their workforce, big time. It’s mathematically impossible. It’s simply not possible for ownership to come close to paying workers in accord with their levels of production and end up with large amounts of money for themselves (ownership). It’s. Literally. Freaking. Impossible.

And this also applies to the way most new billionaires make their fortunes today: IPOs. It still comes down to never, ever paying a workforce even a fraction as much as their production warrants. And none of that even begins to touch upon additional areas of the forgotten, like public works, schools, libraries, common intellectual inheritance, slavery, war, imperialism, etc. etc.

In an ideal world, we’d have zero economic/power pyramids. But even under our current system, the rich should not be in power, or in control of the strings. They’ve already proven themselves unfit.

Zooey wrote:

wv wrote:

Zooey wrote:

One question I have yet to see be discussed is how a billionaire can ethically be a politician in the first place. ..

————–

Yes, of course you are right. And of course its never discussed in the MSM — and if it WERE to be discussed you KNOW how they would ‘discuss’ it — they’d bring in a handful of billionaires and/or CEO’s and/or ‘think-tankers’ and/or other ‘safe’ guests to discuss it.

Its over, Zooey. The scoreboard reads 99 to 1. Bernie being the one.
There is no coming back from 99-1.
I mean there has never been a time when there was MORE information about what was going on. Theres books, films, documentaries, the internet — its all full of accurate information and descriptions of the situation — and….its still…99 to 1. Information no longer matters. Game over. The dems and reps will trade chairs until the end.

w
v

Yes, it’s over. I have to fight the urge to say that in almost every single thread on this board because it’s the bottom line of all of it – climate, banking, energy, voter suppression, you-name-it. It’s over.

FWIW, I’m not sure it’s 99-1. I think Warren might be in there. I am skeptical of her for a reason I haven’t been able to put a finger on, but she fights a good fight, I think. I think Al Franken may be another. I don’t think either one of them is a grifter like Schumer, Pelosi, and…well…all of them, like you say. So it might be 97-3. Which looks better on paper. Sigh.

Greed. It’s what is killing us.

And in America, we have sanctioned greed as a virtue, a public good.

Zooey, just a guess. But the Warren thing is pretty interesting. She wasn’t considered even “liberal” before she emerged as “tough on Wall Street.” And I think if we were in the 1940s — 1960s, she’d just be a mainstream Dem. Her economic stance was the norm back then. Kinda “soft Keynesianism.” Today, after forty-plus years of a return to neoclassical economics, in the guise of “neoliberalism,” she’s considered by some as way left of that.

In short, it’s pretty sad that the furthest edge of the apparently acceptable “left” is barely center-left. And I don’t hear her talk much at all about unions, and virtually never about the poor, and definitely never, ever about alternatives to capitalism. While I see her as pretty honest, at least in relative terms, I don’t see her as a real champion of the working class. She’s more of a champion of a kinder, gentler, more orderly capitalism, which can’t help but favor ownership over workers.

sdram wrote:

Didn’t France have a cure for something like this a couple hundred years ago?

They did in 1871. The Paris Commune. But, tragically, the French powers that be crushed it, violently.

But I’m guessing you’re talking about the French Revolution. Didn’t go so well. Some great ideas behind it, like Liberté, égalité, fraternité. But it was hijacked, etc.

Eugène Delacroix, 1830. Liberty Leading the People.