The Oligarchy

[Scuba]

Goldman Sachs only earned $2.3 billion last year, grabbed $10 billion in TARP, then paid out $4.8 billion in bonuses in 2008 — more than double its net income.

Morgan Stanley (Stock Quote: MS) only earned $1.7 billion last year, received $10 billion in bailout funds, then paid $4.475 billion in bonuses, nearly three times their net income.

JPMorgan Chase (Stock Quote: JPM) only earned $5.6 billion in 2008 and received $25 billion from the government, but it paid out $8.69 billion in bonus money.

Citigroup (Stock Quote: C) and Merrill Lynch suffered a combined $54 billion in losses in 2008. The banks received a total of $55 billion in bailouts and paid out $9 billion in combined bonuses.


Source

[MohRokTah]

1. No such thing. eom

[Scuba]

2. You keep saying that despite the evidence, of which you provide none.

[MohRokTah]

3. You have provided precisely zero evidence there is an oligarchy in control of the US.

[Ed Suspicious]

7. Did you miss this?

https://www.mainstreet.com/article/why-one-wall-street-ceo-rejected-his-bonus

[MohRokTah]

8. That has nothing to do with demonstrating an oligarchy controls the US. eom

[Ed Suspicious]

10. .

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9354310

"Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism."

[MohRokTah]

11. Not proof at all

Merely supposition in an absence of hard evidence.

[Ed Suspicious]

13. You're unconvincable.

[retrowire]

16. Wow, I've earned a new respect for MohRokTah

That is some serious skill at denial there.

[Docreed2003]

27. Ostriches...

Don't stick their head in the sand as often. It's very impressive

[Proserpina]

28. And pointless.

A true curiosity that Freud would have loved to explore...

[SoLeftIAmRight]

31. world class skill

wow - the mind is a funny thing

[tecelote]

25. When private citizens can outspend political parties...

to get their way, the Oligarchy is controlling our government.

Plutocracy not Democracy. The will of the people lose.

Koch Brothers Unveil Plan to Outspend Political Parties in 2016 Election Campaign
http://www.allgov.com/news/where-is-the-money-going/koch-brothers-unveil-plan-to-outspend-political-parties-in-2016-election-campaign-150128?news=855505


Koch-backed network aims to spend nearly $1 billion in run-up to 2016
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/koch-backed-network-aims-to-spend-nearly-1-billion-on-2016-elections/2015/01/26/77a44654-a513-11e4-a06b-9df2002b86a0_story.html

Koch, Exxon And Other Big Oil Spend $141 Million Lobbying Washington For More War
http://www.mintpressnews.com/koch-industries-exxon-mobile-oil-gas-industries-spend-141-million-lobbying-washington-for-more-war-pipelines-and-arctic-drilling/206565/

-----------------------------------------------------------

If we still had a Democracy, what people want would be what they get...



What the people want is not what gets done in Washington.

"government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Lincoln didn't consider corporations people.

[MohRokTah]

29. One name.

Eric Cantor.

[tecelote]

32. Lost me.

[MohRokTah]

37. Cantor outspent his primary opponent more than 10 to 1

Wealthy backers donated to PACs in excess of what Cantor spent.

He lost.

[tecelote]

43. Are you trying to show me how bad Cantor campaigned? So bad that he couldn't get elected?

Because one guy with money losing does not negate the impact billions of dollars from wealthy individuals and corporations have on influencing our lawmakers.

People should mandate what our representatives accomplish not financial benefits.

[FairWinds]

59. Hey Mr. Moh !! Oligarchy lert !!

Did you catch Jimmy?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251977587

You owe us an apology, doncha think?

[Ed Suspicious]

9. Maybe this might help.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9354310

[MohRokTah]

12. No hard evidence, just supposition.

The American people have the power to replace 435 representatives every two years.

You can only have an Oligarchy if that power is removed.

[Ed Suspicious]

14. That's a mindblowingly simplistic take. This is even less satisfying than I could have imagined.

Have a day.

[Chef Eric]

34. Jimmy Carter disagrees with you.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/videos/jimmy-carter-u-s-is-an-oligarchy-with-unlimited-political-bribery-20150731

I guess you think you know more about government than Jimmy Carter.

[MohRokTah]

38. Carter is engaging in hyperbolic rhetoric

Politicians do that all the time to get people worked up.

By definition, there is no Oligarchy in this nation.

[Chef Eric]

42. By definition, Jimmy Carter is not a politician.

He is not professionally involved in politics. He has not sought office for almost forty years.

And he is not the kind of man who engages in hyperbolic rhetoric to "get people worked up."

[lovemydog]

62. President Carter is not currently a politician.

He's a brilliant and well-respected former President who is engaged in helping others via The Habitat for Humanity.

Many others besides President Carter believe we live in an oligarchy. If you asked most students of political science at graduate schools, that is what they would tell you. I spoke with a professor of Political Science a few months ago and she asked her class. Most in her class said we resemble more of an oligarchy than a democracy. I hate quibbling too much over words. But as I said upthread, I believe we've had mixed elements of democracy and oligarchy since the inception of this country.

[BlindTiresias]

47. Incorrect

Oligarchies only strictly require control by a powerful few, there are no further conditions beyond this. If the elected representatives are more beholden to a small faction than the general population in terms of policy generation then you have empirically established the existence of an oligarchy, which is the point of that Princeton study you deflected.

This is why in the democracy of athens and the republic of rome you had oligarchy, and in many cases a direct contest between popular rule and oligarchy.

[sonofspy777]

57. Ever hear of Gerrymandering?

Money does this, are your ears still clogged?

Try some H2O2!

[davekriss]

19. I guess you missed the Princeton study

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/princeton-experts-say-us-no-longer-democracy

My own opinion: There are two votes in America: The dollar vote, followed by the "democratic" vote. Candidates, policies, and legislation generally have to pass the dollar vote before it ever comes to a democratic vote. The problem with this is it's not very "democratic".

Those with more dollars get to vote more than those with less. As a result, no legislation is passed into law that hurts the interests of the monied class. Sure, some legislation makes it through, crumbs for the masses, but again because it does not hurt those with large net worth.

There are exceptions, of course, but this model is substantially true. And it gets worse as money concentrated in the hands of the few.

[MohRokTah]

20. So long as we can eject all 435 members of the House every two years,...

there is no Oligarchy.

And money does not decide. I cite the fact that Cantor outspent his opponent more than 10 to 1 and still lost.

[davekriss]

40. Seems to me you've been given plenty of evidence

Yet you choose to ignore it and instead cite the exception of Cantor to support your counter position. The only inference you can make from Cantor is that there's still hope. But you cannot deny the unresponsiveness of our political elites to the will of the people. The evidence is there. And the headwinds against reversal of this situation are very strong (Citizen's United, for example).

[MohRokTah]

41. Actually, not a shred of evidence has been given.

I suggest you look up the definition of Oligarchy.

[LiberalLovinLug]

50. How can you breathe so deep in d'Nile

Princeton Study: U.S. No Longer An Actual Democracy:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/princeton-experts-say-us-no-longer-democracy

Using data drawn from over 1,800 different policy initiatives from 1981 to 2002, the two conclude that rich, well-connected individuals on the political scene now steer the direction of the country, regardless of or even against the will of the majority of voters.

"The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy," they write, "while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."

But let me guess, you're smarter than some damn "Princeton expert", amIright?

[BlindTiresias]

48. Well...

You are engaging in some definition of oligarchy that nobody else in political science and political philosophy uses.

Here is an interesting analysis of how power works according to a theoretical model I think is valid:
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/

[rug]

55. I love seeing 435 fresh faces every two years.

[lovemydog]

72. Meet the new boss.

Same as the old boss.

[lumberjack_jeff]

74. So does Goldman-Sachs. Representative are cheaper when they're newbies. n/t

[lovemydog]

61. You think there is no such thing as an oligarchy?

I think we've had an oligarchy running this country since its inception.

I guess that's a pretty big difference in our thoughts.

[MohRokTah]

66. By definition, this nation is not run by an oligarchy. eom

[lovemydog]

69. I beg to differ because even in our founding documents,

we're only a representative democracy when it comes to the House of Representatives.

Our founding documents labelled a good number of people as 3/5 people. Women and black people couldn't vote.

Historically, there's a lot of voter suppression too, via gerrymandering, poll taxes and more insidious forms.

The Senate as a body is not democratic either. Nor is the electoral college.

And I'm only talking about voting. That's probably the most democratic thing we have. Most other forms of our society - the media, culture, politics, our tax system, health care, criminal justice - those with the money & power get the influence, and get a much better outcome.

But, we can agree to disagree. Have a good evening.

[laundry_queen]

81. LOL. nt

[PowerToThePeople]

4. Shut them all down

Take all the resources from the companies and the executives and give them back to the people.

[Nye Bevan]

17. Darn that pesky Fifth Amendment.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[senz]

51. The takings clause is normally used for real property --

easements, right-of-way, that sort of thing, in keeping with the right of eminent domain. It would not apply to taxes and penalties.

[tabasco]

5. From my post yesterday --- some things never change.

"Wall Street owns the country. It is no longer a government of the people, by the people, for the people, but a government of Wall Street, by Wall Street, and for Wall Street. Our laws are the output of a system that clothes rascals in robes and honesty in rags."

-- Populist leader Mary Ellen Lease, circa 1890.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Elizabeth_Lease

[AzDar]

22. ...

[Docreed2003]

30. +1. Excellent...thanks for sharing this!

[senz]

52. She was reincarnated as Elizabeth Warren.

May we always have her with us...

[840high]

79. 10++

[Baitball Blogger]

6. Only someone as math impaired as Wall Street couldn't see that the public

is supporting a private enterprise.

[Faux pas]

15. Kickin'

[colsohlibgal]

18. Whatever You Want To Call It

It is obvious big money is ruling over majority opinions/positions. The will of the masses is being derailed. Poll after poll shows that the majority is in favor of things that never seem to come to fruition. Legalized Marijuana, free or at least affordable college, greatly reducing health care costs by doing away with the obscene for profit model we have now.

None of this is happening because of our legalized bribery system in politics, the oligarchs have big bucks to influence all of it. So a rose by any other name as it were. Anyone who cannot see this doesn't want to see it.

[lovemydog]

64. Agree in part

in that it is obvious big money is ruling over majority opinions and policy. Disagree in small part in that this has been true since the beginning of our country. It's up to an engaged citizenry to try and take our country back from the oligarchs. See my posts down thread for more clarification of what I'm saying. I think it's great to point it out and give examples like inheritance laws, capital gains taxes being lower than the standard income tax rate, all of the byzantine laws that favor the rich, geez there's tons of other examples perhaps none more so than the Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court.

The only minor quibble I have is in saying that it's getting worse now. I think it's been this way for a long time. Look at the Vietnam war era, how that quagmire developed and kept getting worse. Or Standard Oil and monopolies and interlocking directorates. It's up to us to learn more about it and be a part of opposing it. I feel a part of that struggle to go against it. Many fine people throughout our country's history have also been part of that struggle. They've also had some great successes too!

[jalan48]

21. Has Hillary even uttered the word oligarchy yet?

[SmittynMo]

23. Are you kidding me?

She's part of it. Why would she mention it?

[jalan48]

24. Exactly-how about the question of income inequality?

The news media frames the debate by ignoring certain questions.

[senz]

53. Wat? And bite the hand that feeds 'er?

Ain't a gonna happen.

[ozone_man]

73. Oli-wat?

I have no idea what that even means.

[whereisjustice]

26. Clintons’ Income May Reach Top 1% of the 1% - thanks to Goldman, JPMorgan and Citigroup

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/06/27/clintons-income-may-reach-top-1-of-the-1/

[Octafish]

85. UBS Wealth Management

Swiss bank UBS gets at least $53 Billion in bailout cash, then hires former Sen. Phil Gramm and later former President Bill Clinton, two key figures in repeal of Glass-Steagal Act, the New Deal legislation that prevented banksters from looting US taxpayer backed accounts to play in the Wall Street casino. So now Gramm and Clinton specialize in Wealth Management:

http://financialservicesinc.ubs.com/revitalizingamerica/SenatorPhilGramm.html

[jwirr]

33. And the banks are only the cover. Behind are other corporations

and the rich 1%ers.

[tblue37]

35. K&R for as much visibility as possible. nt

[Uncle Joe]

36. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Scuba.

[valerief]

39. The Treasury is their piggy bank. nt

[randr]

44. Organized thievery

The only function of which is to line their own pockets

[jtuck004]

45. Oh, that's where the recovery went. Glad they were able to help those folks out.

That leaves scores of millions added to those in poverty, as new working poor, and now as the first generation who we have made sure will have less.

Most will die before they recover even a small percentage of what was taken.

[PowerToThePeople]

54. This.

Most will die before they recover even a small percentage of what was taken.

[FairWinds]

46. Hey Mr. Moh . .

you might want to consider taking a POL SCI course.

[Rebkeh]

49. Oh, for Pete's

You both are right and wrong.

Officially, or formally if you prefer, the term oligarchy is a very extreme, and specific, thing. We are still a "representative democracy" on paper.

However...

There is no denying that the American government is not following the will of its people. Most of the individuals within it are looking out for themselves and there is extensive evidence and historical data to support this fact. If nothing else, there's clear indication of a pattern that goes as far back as the inception of the country. There's no parsing it - the oppression is real. It used to be oppression of specific sets of people in varying degrees, of isolated clusters of groups but that changed over time to become more widespread. Now, pretty much everyone is oppressed - some more than others - in one way or another.

Government can still be useful though, democracy is worth saving.

FWIW, I prefer using the term establishment but have no problem with the two used interchangeably. I am not splitting hairs over it - that's a distraction tactic.

[kentuck]

56. Good info!

Obscene in its brazenness...

[azmom]

58. K&R

[lovemydog]

60. Did the government make the money back?

Was the government repaid with interest? Why didn't the government demand that these types of bonuses cannot be paid? Why didn't the government present a stronger negotiating position to demand that instead of paying these insane bonuses, that the money would be used to pay down the deficit (or half for the deficit and half to fund social security more effectively or take your pick)? Isn't this precisely the 'shock doctrine' or 'disaster capitalism' that Naomi Klein and Thomas Piketty, to name a few, have discussed? What would have happened if we hadn't bailed out those banks? How can we prevent this 'too big to fail' bullshit from ever happening again?

These are sincere questions. I believe in breaking up the big banks. I'm not trying to make an argument or score political points. I don't quibble about the term oligarchy. I believe there are elements of an oligarchy at play in our country. I know there's something going on arguing about the word oligarchy here, but I'm not part of that argument. There are also forms of representative democracy when an active engaged informed citizenry exercises its right to vote. The effects are most dramatic on a local and State level, where small numbers of people voting can dramatically affect the outcome.

[lovemydog]

63. Definition of oligarchy:

oligarchy
1. a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.
2. a state or organization so ruled.
3. the persons or class so ruling.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/oligarchy

Now I've gotta get the heck out of this thread because I don't like arguing too much on the internets, lol. But this is actually a pretty fascinating thread.

I'm surprised that anyone here would argue that we don't at least have some serious forms of oligarchy in this country. We've had those forms since the country's inception. Any strong reading of history indicates it. Hamilton and Jefferson argued about it extensively. Jefferson and Adams vehemently argued about 'oligarchy' (rule by the few) versus 'mobocracy' (rule by the mob).

Maybe it wasn't exactly called oligarchy back then, but the origin of the word is Greek so maybe they did use that exact word. Jackson based his campaign for the presidency on breaking up the big banks. Teddy R. & FDR took active steps against it.

It seems like every generation we must get serious about challenging and breaking up the oligarchy because it keeps clustering in mutating forms. I hope this generation will catch on and challenge and oppose it in every way shape and manner.

[Scuba]

65. I can only think of two reasons to deny we're an oligarchy ....

You're part of it or your paid to deny it.

[raouldukelives]

67. Know Thyself. So few truly do. nt

[hifiguy]

86. Boom. Walk off, Scuba.

Grand slam home run.

[H2O Man]

68. Right!

I had "recommended" the OP yesterday, but purposely waited to respond .....because I found some of the responses so curious. A few of our friends not only disagreed with the OP, but were emotionally invested to an extent that prevented rational debate.

[lovemydog]

70. Revisiting it again today,

I find the discussion quite fascinating.

[H2O Man]

71. And that, it is.

There are times when I really wonder about some of our friends on this forum.

[treestar]

75. There are thousands of elected positions in this country

at several levels. States vs. federal separation of powers plus three branches for the fed and each state. The oligarchy crap is ridiculous. Just stupid. It assume the voters are all too stupid to do anything but vote for whoever spent the most money. They are nonagents unable to think for themselves under this absurd stance.

[libdem4life]

76. Cool story...let's see, there was Citizen's United. I don't recall approving that. Then there was

the taxpayer bailout. I don't recall approving that. There have been a few wars. I don't recall anything but wanting to throw up around that issue. Well, one could go on and on...I kind of think of The DC Beltway as the Oligarchy. They have their own little club, so the "elected representatives" check in and out...including the President.

So I ask...what can I do about any of that? Nothing. That's an Oligarchy in practice...regardless of where we may have started or intended...it is what is now.

Oh, and I'm not a stupid voter or unable to think for myself. Really.

[lovemydog]

80. You said it eloquently.

There are oligarchic elements throughout this country's history. And through every country's history. I wish we could break those oligarchic elements up and have better opportunities for all in our country.

There have been some democrats and some socialists who have given far more than me toward that end. It's a struggle that was mentioned in many songs like 'Which Side Are You On?' way back when.

I think Jimmy Carter is one of those people who has given most of his life toward fighting against the oligarchy. I think he's qualified to discuss it, far more qualified than me.

I'm not saying there aren't elements of democracy here in this country too. The struggle to make things more democratic, in my opinion, includes properly identifying and fighting against the oligarchic elements, where we see them, in our own ways.

Sorry, I'm preaching to the choir in responding to you. I just wanted to acknowledge your post and thank you for it. I didn't feel like responding to the post above, because I think you responded better than I could.

[treestar]

82. they are all elected

money may be a problem, but it does not completely take over the minds of the little people. People have the ability to vote for who they want, campaign, run for office, etc.

Every local election is about money only? If it is, it is because voters don't pay attention. They could if they chose to.

[libdem4life]

83. The Little People = Little Power People. Unless one has an office in The Beltway, they are

in national politics, thus national donors begin their "dues collection". It's kind of an political exercise to see who will pay the real dues to get into the big leagues.

Put differently, State and lower = Little League. US Senate and DC folk = Big League.

[senz]

77. America's founders set up a democratic form of government.

Democracy is government of, by, and for the people. The very concept of voting, of electing representatives to govern the country, of "one man one vote," meant that citizenship and voting were not dependent on circumstances such as personal wealth, and the American government was intended to serve everyone, regardless of material wealth. (Yes, our nation's founders were limited to their 18th century worldview and didn't realize that women and AAs should be full voting citizens within the new democracy, but the Constitution they created was flexible enough to eventually expand democratic governance to include nonwhites and females.) America was created as a democratic government. That is fundamental.

Oligarchy is not democracy. Oligarchy is government or, by, and for the few. Changes in our government put in place by the Reagan administration have altered the conduct, purpose, and outcome of the government. It no longer serves the people -- the many -- as our founders intended. This has been a coup, a relatively slow, quiet, bloodless coup. Power has been transferred from the many to the few. This is an immense transformation of our country. And yet the Constitution itself has not changed – although, over time, the Supreme Court altered the meanings of some of some of the words in the Constitution. Words like "person," and "speech." So now corporations are persons and money is speech. Little changes like this have had huge effects, as power that was intended to be shared relatively equally by all has gradually flowed away from the common person and toward the wealthy few, from democracy to oligarchy. (In fact, it is a specific kind of oligarchy: plutocracy, "government by the wealthy.&quot

This is a big deal. It matters. We need to put it out in the open, talk about it, and deal with it. There are "Democrats" on this website who either refuse to see this truth or refuse to admit it. There may even be some who are unable to grasp it. But what has happened and is happening with this gradual transfer of power amounts to a slowly building oppression of "the many." Most people know something is wrong, but they don't know what or why, so they seek scapegoats in other people (races, religions, etc.) and/or in government itself. They can't see who it is that has taken the reins of our government away from them. They don't know what happened to make everyday living turn so harsh, uncomfortable, and vaguely frightening, as it is for so many today.

That's the conversation Senator Sanders is trying to start with the country.

[hifiguy]

87. A superb post.

Dead bang on.

For the last 35 years power has been stripped from the populace and accumulated in the hands of the wealthy and connected. Not by accident, but by deliberate design.

[senz]

90. Thank so much, hifiguy.

It could have been said better (it can always be said better), but it's such a large, complicated concept that I tried to boil it way down. If people can just start seeing what has happened, if they can just start thinking...

[silvershadow]

91. wonder why i could rec? the button is gone...

[madokie]

78. This is obscene

totally fucked up. We can't have Hillary win this because if we do we'll never get out of the hole we'll be in shortly.

"Cut it out" is not a winning Policy

[libdem4life]

84. Like two opposing attorneys in a divorce case. They excoriate each other in court, then go to the

local bars and yuk it up. Believe me, I know and so do many other single parents. It's a flipping money-making shake-down game. It's just bigger league.

See the photos with Hillary and (fill in the blank________) financier. They have no worries about we Peasants.

[hifiguy]

88. One thing they always share is their complete contempt

for we proletarians. Because they screw us and steal from us no matter which "side" wins.

[libdem4life]

89. So true. Jonathon Livingston Seagull personified.