A fond welcome to a new Communist magazine, comrades! This Communist magazine did a survey and found that 70% of those polled supported higher taxes on Wall Street, especially higher taxes on bonuses for executives of bailed-out firms. Clearly this magazine only surveyed fellow Communists, not good upstanding capitalist Americans, who surely would never support higher taxes on the rich because, well, that's Communist, right, comrade?
Oh, the name of this new Communist publication? Urm... Bloomberg News. And the people surveyed were a statistically random sample of Americans.
Hmm... by the definition of the Weeper of the House (Boehner) and the Weeper of the Tube (Glenn Beck), that makes 70% of Americans... COMMUNISTS? Welcome, comrades! Let us build a worker's paradise here in Soviet America, da?
-- Badtux the Snarky Penguin
Before we build a workers' paradise, can we kill a lot of the capitalists first? I suggest starting with the nine people alluded to, but not named, in that New York Times story Sunday about the secret committee that fixes the market prices on credit default swaps.
ReplyDeleteKill The Rich! It's going to be the New Meme, until the Internet gets shut down.
This seems a perfect example of how democracy is broken, specifically the responsiveness of representatives to their constituents' desires.
ReplyDeleteYet on more than one occasion you have chastised Americans for continuously electing corrupt boobs. My point being that even when we elect someone who promises something, they often end up doing something else, or ignoring the obvious desires (which can be found easily enough, as with this Bloomberg poll) of those they serve. The bailout & public polling regarding it is another example.
So contrary to your assertions, which I may be misrepresenting, it's not necessarily our fault for electing them, but their fault for ignoring what we want, i.e., democracy is broken.
Not trying to start a fight. I just don't think state-wide elections have much meaning anymore. They'll say/do anything to get elected, and then do whatever they please once they've taken office.
And with people having to work so much just to eat, it's a bit much asking them to get involved with their local party organization, all the way up the line, to try to make sure only "honest" people are elected, when it's always those with the most money who win anyway.
Not that you've specifically recommended this approach, but I can't imagine another way to attempt to directly influence who becomes a candidate for a state-wide election. Because simply voting on election day ain't gonna change anything.