Yes, money controls the system. More directly, money controls the flow of information --- buying ads costs money, buying airtime costs money, buying internet URLs and radio plugs costs money. The internet --- which most people just assume is free --- also costs money to operate, and is run largely by corporations with a profit motive. Running a campaign costs money, getting your name out there costs money, and defending yourself against allegations costs money --- it doesn't matter how genuine and good your position is, if the other guy is the one who gets to paint the public image of you. People only have whatever information you or your opponent release about yourself, and if your opponent is in control of what people know about you (because he or she has more money to spend disseminating that information), then you're at a severe disadvantage. You can point out that people vote, and therefore it's all the people's fault, but the people only vote based on the information they have, and if very rich people are spending billions of dollars disseminating conflicting information (and otherwise doing everything they can to obfuscate the issues), it makes it very difficult for a voter to make informed decisions.
Money controls the system? What the hell do you think money is? It isn't money that controls the system, it is people, and people suck, which is why I cannot understand how having power located further away for YOU the VOTER, could possibly be considered a good thing.
Remember, 85% of campaigns are won by the candidate with more money and more endorsements:
Libertarians tend to dismiss this aspect of the equation, because they think information is cheap and easy to come by --- like fundamentalist religious people, they are quick to say, "Alex Jones and Glenn Beck told you the truth, so why didn't you listen?", and if you don't pay unquestioning loyalty unto such personalities, then you're just "looking away from the truth." Another reason I despise libertarians as a whole --- they don't seem to give much of a flip about whether their information is genuine or not, they only care that it's what they want to hear. I'm a bit of a skeptic myself, and so even if I hear something I *want* to believe, I still feel the need to follow through and make sure it's real, and not just settle for a confirmation bias.
In 2010 -- which is not only the most recent election year but also the year specifically cited in the sign -- the percentage of big-money winners in U.S. House races was actually 85 percent, or nine points lower. And the percentages of U.S. Senate seats and state legislative seats won by the deeper-pocketed candidate have been consistently lower in recent election cycles.
Get a feel for some nuance, bruh. Where did I say anything about politicians being the good guys, or deserving more power? They're just as much to blame for this (for taking donations from special interest groups, and pandering to them instead of the people) as corporations and special interest groups are.
On one hand politicians are bad, evil, corrupt, money grubbing, and unaccountable, but then in the next breath, the wheels of the train would come off if we don't give them more power?! Hell, lets let them control the health care industry!
There were several states in our union that had to pass amendments to their state constitutions because corporations owned the state government. Corporate corruption has been around as long as corporations and governments have existed; this predates America by a longshot.
It wasn't until the FEDERAL government got big, that big companies moved into Washington. Lobbying wasn't the issue it is today.
You are completely wrong. Social Security is paid for, in full, completely, by the Social Security tax levied off of every single working American's income tax payment, and off of a certain (low) percentage of corporate tax revenue. It is paid for beforehand, it takes no money from any other government program, and it has nothing to do with the deficit (don't believe me? Ask Ronald Reagan, that famed "liberal fascist" what-have-you).
Social Security, IS one of the benefits people have voted themselves. It IS a Ponzi in the most literal use of the word.
There's your problem. "The Fiscal Cliff" is a Republican libertarian fantasy. It's a fiscal hill. All that will happen is some automatic defense spending cuts will go into effect (which is good --- none of those cuts actually come from support for troops or necessities, but rather wasteful spending on military contractors, for things like building planes that the Air Force didn't request and that won't be used), and some corporate tax rates will return to the levels they used to be at before Bush Jr. was elected; it's a fallacy that this money will be "taken out of the economy" because it's going towards higher taxes for corporations making over $200,000/year, which (according to libertarians and Republicans) is going towards social programs anyway, which primarily affect the middle class, which means the middle class will have increased purchasing power, which means the economy will be stronger. You've fallen for the sham hook, line and sinker:
It is THE reason we will be going over the real fiscal cliff.
Deal or no deal, many investors don't expect the effects of the "fiscal cliff" to linger in the stock market for too long. One big reason is that everyone has seen it coming for months.
"We're not overly concerned," says David Hefty, CEO of Hefty Wealth Partners in Auburn, Ind. "The thing to keep in mind is that what hurts investors, what hurts the market, are things that are unexpected."
He adds: "Everybody has 2008 burned into their minds. They think the fiscal cliff will be the next 2008 event. A 2008 event is when nobody sees it coming, and everyone is blindsided. Nobody's going to be blindsided by this."
Hefty says he'll watch whether the Federal Reserve continues its policy of pumping money into the economy, and fundamentals like housing and unemployment, to decide how to invest in 2013.
"We're looking at two key things that matter the most," he says. "The 'fiscal cliff' isn't one of them."
Ah, the "perspective fallacy." In reality, what you point out here is a fundamental flaw of *any* heirarchical government, be it local, district, state, federal or international: the National government makes promises it can't deliver, so it borrows from foreign countries, okay; the Federal government makes promises at the state level that it can't deliver, so it borrows from other states; if we had states and no federal government, states would make decisions at the district level that it couldn't deliver, and so it would borrow from other districts, and the districts would have the same complaints about the state government that you have now about the federal government; if we had only districts, then the districts would make promises at the local and city level that it couldn't deliver, and it would just borrow from other local areas.
What's more I am not even against these entitlement programs, if they came at the state level, where the state will pay the price if it promises more than it can deliver
It's a valid criticism. But state government is subject to the same criticism.