Plutocracy is rule by the wealthy, or power provided by wealth. (wikipedia)
Had to look that one up. Good call. Yes, the U.S. is to large degree a plutocracy. Every place and time is, to some degree, though. The only way to offset it is to charge the rich higher tax rates, which makes sense to me (socialist capitalist non-plutocrat that i am). At 07:42 PM 10/29/2009, Quadius wrote: >I am glad I continue to read all of this threat or I might have answered the >same way you did. > >There are problems in each of those countries, but by and large Sweden has the >best standard of living across the board. Their pop stars live much like the >regular folk in that country and there is not a gross disparity between the >upper class and the middle class. The people just seem to be content with >doing a good job as long as they get a good education, good vacation, >guaranteed health care, and a fantastic retirement system. > >Actually I would argue that our country is not as much of a representative >democracy as it is a plutocracy now days. Just check out the two senators, >who were supposed to be Democrats, that are threatening to filibuster any bill >that has a public option in it. > >Senator Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent right now, but is a member of >the Democratic caucus and the chairman of the Senate Homeland security >committee, is going to allow the bill to go to the floor for argument, but has >vowed to filibuster if the bill has a public option of any type in it. >According to <http://salon.com>salon.com's Glenn Greenwald, "In early 2005, >[Senator Lieberman's] wife was hired by a large P.R. firm, Hill & Knowlton, in >the pharmaceutical division, which at the time representing the health care >giant Glaxo and major legislation before the Senate. And several months later, >Joe Lieberman was on the floor of the Senate offering legislation that would >directly steer huge amounts of incentives to that company in order to develop >vaccines." > >There is definitely a monetary incentive for Senator Lieberman to take the >position he has right now despite the fact that polls show 68% of the >residents of Connecticut want a public option. He is doing is strictly for >the health insurance companies which are based in his state. > >Senator Evan Bayh, Democratic Senator of Indiana, who has indicated he won't >even allow the bill on the floor to debate, much less vote for it later on, >has even greater problem. His wife is still on the WellPoint's, one of the >largest health insurance companies in the country, board of directors. >Together they both owned between $500,000 and $1 million of WellPoint stock. >So he and his wife both stand to lose or gain financially from this bill >depending on what the end result is. > >In a column written a couple of weeks ago by Dan Carpenter, a columnist for >the "Indianapolis Sun," Carpenter wrote, "After it became clear he was going >to be a senator, Susan Bayh started stacking up memberships on the board of >health care corporations. Susan Bayh got paid a little over $2 million for her >service between 2006 and 2008. Her husband had a god 2008 also, collecting >more than $500,000 in campaign donations from the health care industry." > >It seems as if almost everyone is corrupt in the Washington circles, most >definitely a majority of the Senate. > >I don't even want to get into the rest. > >It would really be nice if the people who were elected to represent our >interests would do so and stop worrying about being elected again. It really >doesn't matter if they're left or right, if they do the will of the people >they will continue to be a round long enough to do some good. > >Just my two cents. I could be wrong. >Quadius >PS sorry this was so long. > >On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Dan <<mailto:d...@unh.edu>d...@unh.edu> wrote: >Those countries which have a much higher degree of socialism then the United >States. These countries being, Sweden, France, England, Norway. In fact, most >of the prosperous European states. You must remember that our own country has >a moderate degree of socialism as is evident in our educational system, fire >departments, police departments, and military establishment. > >Dan > >At 11:43 AM 10/28/2009, bob quinn said something that elicited my response: > >Hi Dan, > >Just curious, what successful socialist country would you hold up as an >example? > >At 08:32 PM 10/27/2009, Dan wrote: >As John has said before, democracy is nothing more than mob rule. Our country >is not a democracy but rather a representative form of government. That is, we >elect people to do our bidding. The trouble is greed gets in the way. So our >representatives stop representing ourselves and start representing those with >the most money. This is where capitalism comes into play. For some reason the >majority of people in this country love this system. They love the American >way which is like a giant game of Monopoly. A few get people all the money and >of course all the power. The people with all the power elect those who in turn >see to it that those in power, stay in power. > >A much more humane system of governance would be a form of all the socialism. >Which is what most people in the world use as a form of government. This >country is afraid of socialism. They think socialism is the same as communism. >Communism is not the bugaboo that people seem think it is. The trouble with >Communism is, it doesn't work. But it is a great idea. Everyone does their >share of the work and reaps their share of the profits. But of course, there >is always one or two slackers, and then three or four slackers, and so on and >so on until you have a few people doing most of the work with the resulting >lack of profits, produce, etc.. Unfortunately, I guess that's common nature. > > >This is where socialism came in. People in socialist countries work far fewer >hours than they do in strictly capitalistic countries. Because they don't work >as hard they generally are much happier. The government provides them with all >the necessities of life. Such as; education, medical care, a good >infrastructure, police force, fire department, etc. Of course, they are >heavily taxed. But it does not seem to bother them as all their basic needs >are provided for. How many people do you know that waste their excess money? I >have neighbors that don't have a pot to piss in yet they have four cars in >their driveway. I have neighbors that fight to see who can get the biggest >pool or most expensive car or - well you get the point. > >Okay I'm done ranting. > >Dan > >
