evince
Truthmatters
This
Reagan destroyed the peoples power
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
This
LurchAddams
There Can be Only One!
LurchAddams
There Can be Only One!
That means, once in awhile I DO think, according to you. Thank you for the compliment, Yagina!!!
LurchAddams
There Can be Only One!
Yakuda
Verified User
I'm sorry. It was all my fault, Yagina. I love you
Oh course it's you're fault you're retarded piece of shit.
Poor brain dead Yakuda, he's such a pathetic case.
LurchAddams
There Can be Only One!
evince
Truthmatters
evince
Truthmatters
https://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/news/2018/page-democracy-in-america.html
Let’s look at the main study that produced these findings
Let’s look at the main study that produced these findings
evince
Truthmatters
In their new book, Democracy in America? What Has Gone Wrong and What We Can Do About It (University of Chicago Press, 2017), political scientist and IPR associate Benjamin Page and Martin Gilens of Princeton University present an indictment of today’s politics, pointing specifically to how the American public has little say in policy decisions.
After analyzing approximately 2,000 federal policy decisions over 20 years, Page and Gilens found that affluent Americans, corporations, and organized interest groups have been much more successful than ordinary Americans at getting their preferred policies passed.
After analyzing approximately 2,000 federal policy decisions over 20 years, Page and Gilens found that affluent Americans, corporations, and organized interest groups have been much more successful than ordinary Americans at getting their preferred policies passed.
evince
Truthmatters
He notes that when 60–70 percent of Americans have favored a particular policy change, that change has only been implemented about 40 percent of the time.
“The public is often thwarted through inaction,” Page says. “The wealthy and partisan extremists often succeed at stopping proposals that are popular.”
Is U.S. democracy doomed? Page maintains that there is hope.
“This is a very promising moment,” he says. “There’s been a lot of energy reacting against the Trump administration. It may be possible to focus some of that energy on long-term solutions to the mess in the political system.”
Page and Gilens call for giving citizens more power to shape what their government does, by enfranchising all citizens, reforming governing institutions, curbing the power of money in politics, and changing the way we choose candidates and conduct elections. They claim that doing so will reduce polarization and gridlock and will lead to the enactment of policies that better reflect the interests of average Americans.
Page and Gilens particularly point to the issue of money in politics: In 2012, .001 percent of Americans provided almost half of all the money spent in federal elections. Big-money donors are also able to keep candidates and issues that they disagree with off the ballots. As a result, U.S. government policy reflects the wishes of those with money more than the wishes of ordinary citizens.
To curtail the power of money—even before Supreme Court doctrine can be changed—they suggest public funding of elections through “democracy vouchers.” To encourage democratic participation, they call for universal voter registration, election-day holidays, and reforms that would yield more attractive candidates.
This may sound like a tall order. But “even big changes are possible if you work hard enough long enough,” Page argues.
“The public is often thwarted through inaction,” Page says. “The wealthy and partisan extremists often succeed at stopping proposals that are popular.”
Is U.S. democracy doomed? Page maintains that there is hope.
“This is a very promising moment,” he says. “There’s been a lot of energy reacting against the Trump administration. It may be possible to focus some of that energy on long-term solutions to the mess in the political system.”
Page and Gilens call for giving citizens more power to shape what their government does, by enfranchising all citizens, reforming governing institutions, curbing the power of money in politics, and changing the way we choose candidates and conduct elections. They claim that doing so will reduce polarization and gridlock and will lead to the enactment of policies that better reflect the interests of average Americans.
Page and Gilens particularly point to the issue of money in politics: In 2012, .001 percent of Americans provided almost half of all the money spent in federal elections. Big-money donors are also able to keep candidates and issues that they disagree with off the ballots. As a result, U.S. government policy reflects the wishes of those with money more than the wishes of ordinary citizens.
To curtail the power of money—even before Supreme Court doctrine can be changed—they suggest public funding of elections through “democracy vouchers.” To encourage democratic participation, they call for universal voter registration, election-day holidays, and reforms that would yield more attractive candidates.
This may sound like a tall order. But “even big changes are possible if you work hard enough long enough,” Page argues.
evince
Truthmatters
https://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-america-an-oligarchy
In depth article on the study and book
In depth article on the study and book
evince
Truthmatters
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
and to punish him, the people voted to elect him in every state except one........
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
I watched the entire video in linked in the OP.
Hartmann is dead flat wrong on a number of things.
At about 3 minutes in he says that the people (the majority) don't always get what they want. He continues on to say this is a bad thing and anti-democratic. Well, it might be anti-democratic but it is not always, in fact usually isn't, a bad thing.
Thought experiment (I know this will flummox the Leftists here who won't get it): You have three kids. You and they each get a vote in what to do. They vote for Micky D's and ice cream. You vote to pay the rent. Three against one, the democratic thing is Micky D's and ice cream. That stupid decision results in all four of you being homeless. Democracy doesn't always, in fact often, work.
Then he brings up the pre-Reagan era reciting what amounts to LBJ's Great Society. The Great Society program was a disaster. LBJ said in 20 years that Medicare would cost no more than $12 billion dollars. Twenty years later (1965 - 1985) it was at $90 billion and growing. Food Stamps (SNAP) has grown the same way both in cost and the number of people on it even as its originators expected it not to grow in scope or costs.
The public housing portion of the Great Society plan was an absolute disaster that ended with the Watts riots and angry people forced into this housing burning it to the ground.
The Model City program was likewise a disaster. Detroit was held up as the premier city of that program. Look at how utterly fucked up it is today.
The government getting into funding college is mentioned, without considering how that has skyrocketed the costs of getting a college education through the rafters and into the stratosphere.
What he misses with Reagan, and even Clinton, along with Margaret Thacher, is that they (Clinton reluctantly when he lost Congress but was smart enough to recognize which way the wind was blowing) dumped many of these programs in part or whole (for instance adding work requirements for welfare) that reduced the cost of them markedly while removing large numbers of people from them because they were now forced to produce for themselves.
He babbles on about, for all intents, how great it would be for us to follow models like Greece, Italy, Sweden in the 60's, etc., and adopt Socialism (without directly saying it) because that's what people want--right up until the economy tanks and there's nobody left to pay for it. Again, democracy isn't always the answer and Hartmann is either being clueless or disingenuous here.
Hartmann is dead flat wrong on a number of things.
At about 3 minutes in he says that the people (the majority) don't always get what they want. He continues on to say this is a bad thing and anti-democratic. Well, it might be anti-democratic but it is not always, in fact usually isn't, a bad thing.
Thought experiment (I know this will flummox the Leftists here who won't get it): You have three kids. You and they each get a vote in what to do. They vote for Micky D's and ice cream. You vote to pay the rent. Three against one, the democratic thing is Micky D's and ice cream. That stupid decision results in all four of you being homeless. Democracy doesn't always, in fact often, work.
Then he brings up the pre-Reagan era reciting what amounts to LBJ's Great Society. The Great Society program was a disaster. LBJ said in 20 years that Medicare would cost no more than $12 billion dollars. Twenty years later (1965 - 1985) it was at $90 billion and growing. Food Stamps (SNAP) has grown the same way both in cost and the number of people on it even as its originators expected it not to grow in scope or costs.
The public housing portion of the Great Society plan was an absolute disaster that ended with the Watts riots and angry people forced into this housing burning it to the ground.
The Model City program was likewise a disaster. Detroit was held up as the premier city of that program. Look at how utterly fucked up it is today.
The government getting into funding college is mentioned, without considering how that has skyrocketed the costs of getting a college education through the rafters and into the stratosphere.
What he misses with Reagan, and even Clinton, along with Margaret Thacher, is that they (Clinton reluctantly when he lost Congress but was smart enough to recognize which way the wind was blowing) dumped many of these programs in part or whole (for instance adding work requirements for welfare) that reduced the cost of them markedly while removing large numbers of people from them because they were now forced to produce for themselves.
He babbles on about, for all intents, how great it would be for us to follow models like Greece, Italy, Sweden in the 60's, etc., and adopt Socialism (without directly saying it) because that's what people want--right up until the economy tanks and there's nobody left to pay for it. Again, democracy isn't always the answer and Hartmann is either being clueless or disingenuous here.