Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

In no small part that’s because the long era during which average Americans grew more wealthy has come to a sputtering stop. People who are asked how well they are doing economically frequently compare their own standard of living with that of their parents. Until recently, this comparison was heartening. At the age of 30, more than nine in 10 Americans born in 1940 were earning more than their parents had at the same stage of their lives. But according to eye-popping research led by the economist Raj Chetty and his co-authors, many Millennials do not share in this age-old American experience of improving fortunes. Among those Americans born in the early 1980s, only half earn more than their parents did at a similar age.

It’s a suspicion stoked by the fact that, across a range of issues, public policy does not reflect the preferences of the majority of Americans. If it did, the country would look radically different: Marijuana would be legal and campaign contributions more tightly regulated; paid parental leave would be the law of the land and public colleges free; the minimum wage would be higher and gun control much stricter; abortions would be more accessible in the early stages of pregnancy and illegal in the third trimester.

The subversion of the people’s preferences in our supposedly democratic system was explored in a 2014 study by the political scientists Martin Gilens of Princeton and Benjamin I. Page of Northwestern. Four broad theories have long sought to answer a fundamental question about our government: Who rules? One theory, the one we teach our children in civics classes, holds that the views of average people are decisive. Another theory suggests that mass-based interest groups such as the AARP have the power. A third theory predicts that business groups such as the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America and the National Beer Wholesalers Association carry the day. A fourth theory holds that policy reflects the views of the economic elite.

Gilens and Page tested those theories by tracking how well the preferences of various groups predicted the way that Congress and the executive branch would act on 1,779 policy issues over a span of two decades. The results were shocking. Economic elites and narrow interest groups were very influential: They succeeded in getting their favored policies adopted about half of the time, and in stopping legislation to which they were opposed nearly all of the time. Mass-based interest groups, meanwhile, had little effect on public policy. As for the views of ordinary citizens, they had virtually no independent effect at all. “When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy,” Gilens and Page wrote...............................

In no small part that’s because the long era during which average Americans grew more wealthy has come to a sputtering stop. People who are asked how well they are doing economically frequently compare their own standard of living with that of their parents. Until recently, this comparison was heartening. At the age of 30, more than nine in 10 Americans born in 1940 were earning more than their parents had at the same stage of their lives. But according to eye-popping research led by the economist Raj Chetty and his co-authors, many Millennials do not share in this age-old American experience of improving fortunes. Among those Americans born in the early 1980s, only half earn more than their parents did at a similar age.

Pwns wrote:Saying America is not a Democracy but a Constitutional Republic is like saying "I don't own a motor vehicle, I have a Sedan".

It's not a direct democracy. I don't disagree that big money also influences politics but letting money drive the bus against majority opinion is always taking the risk that one particular issue isn't going to be a deal breaker for enough voters.

America's triumvirate is basically the constitution, voters, and oligarchy.

Ibanez wrote:

Pwns wrote:Saying America is not a Democracy but a Constitutional Republic is like saying "I don't own a motor vehicle, I have a Sedan".

It's not a direct democracy. I don't disagree that big money also influences politics but letting money drive the bus against majority opinion is always taking the risk that one particular issue isn't going to be a deal breaker for enough voters.

America's triumvirate is basically the constitution, voters, and oligarchy.

Saying we aren't a Democracy is also wrong.

kalm wrote:

Ibanez wrote: Saying we aren't a Democracy is also wrong.

We are a constitutionally limited democratic republic.

And yes the article is wrong and preaching to the choir of those who already understand, but it's still worth the read when you get a chance.

Ibanez wrote:

kalm wrote:
We are a constitutionally limited democratic republic.

And yes the article is wrong and preaching to the choir of those who already understand, but it's still worth the read when you get a chance.

I like the word "Federation"...there's something about it...

Grizalltheway wrote:

Ibanez wrote: I like the word "Federation"...there's something about it...

Commie.

Ibanez wrote:

Pwns wrote:Saying America is not a Democracy but a Constitutional Republic is like saying "I don't own a motor vehicle, I have a Sedan".

It's not a direct democracy. I don't disagree that big money also influences politics but letting money drive the bus against majority opinion is always taking the risk that one particular issue isn't going to be a deal breaker for enough voters.

America's triumvirate is basically the constitution, voters, and oligarchy.

Saying we aren't a Democracy is also wrong.

JohnStOnge wrote:I'd be fine if we get rid of the Electoral College system and go to using the popular vote to select the President.

I think that the Senate provides a reasonable opportunity for low population States to stay relevant since each State gets two Senators regardless of population.

I would also like to see us go to using algorithms based on looking at geography and population to draw Congressional districts. I'd like to see intentional gerrymandering brought to an end.

css75 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:I'd be fine if we get rid of the Electoral College system and go to using the popular vote to select the President.

I think that the Senate provides a reasonable opportunity for low population States to stay relevant since each State gets two Senators regardless of population.

I would also like to see us go to using algorithms based on looking at geography and population to draw Congressional districts. I'd like to see intentional gerrymandering brought to an end.

I figured it would be you who would like to go to mob rule and let a few select cities and state run the country. Small states and states with large rural areas will never, never willingly change the electoral system.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The work of K Street lobbyists, and the violation of our government by big money, has fundamentally transformed the work—and the lives—of the people’s supposed representatives. Steve Israel, a Democratic congressman from Long Island, was a consummate moneyman. Over the course of his 16 years on Capitol Hill, he arranged 1,600 fund-raisers for himself, averaging one every four days. Israel cited fund-raising as one of the main reasons he decided to retire from Congress, in 2016: “I don’t think I can spend another day in another call room making another call begging for money,” he told The New York Times. “I always knew the system was dysfunctional. Now it is beyond broken.”

A model schedule for freshman members of Congress prepared a few years ago by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee instructs them to spend about four hours every day cold-calling donors for cash. The party encourages so many phone calls because the phone calls work. Total spending on American elections has grown to unprecedented levels. From 2000 to 2012, reported federal campaign spending doubled. It’s no surprise, then, that a majority of Americans now believe Congress to be corrupt, according to a 2015 Gallup poll. As Israel memorably put it to HBO’s John Oliver, the hours he had spent raising money had been “a form of torture—and the real victims of this torture have become the American people, because they believe that they don’t have a voice in this system.”


Big donors and large corporations use their largesse to sway political decisions. But their influence goes far beyond those instances in which legislators knowingly sacrifice their constituents’ interests to stay on the right side of their financial backers. The people we spend time with day in and day out shape our tastes, our assumptions, and our values. The imperative to raise so much money means that members of Congress log more time with donors and lobbyists and less time with their constituents. Often, when faced with a vote on a bill of concern to their well-heeled backers, legislators don’t have to compromise their ideals—because they spend so much of their lives around donors and lobbyists, they have long ago come to share their views.

JohnStOnge wrote:

css75 wrote:

I figured it would be you who would like to go to mob rule and let a few select cities and state run the country. Small states and states with large rural areas will never, never willingly change the electoral system.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Heaven forbid that the majority of the people would determine who wins the one office elected by all the people in the country.

Again: The Senate provides the buffer for small States. If you're Wyoming you get 2 Senators. If you're California that has 68 times the population of Wyoming you still get 2 Senators. And the Senate has that filibuster thing.

There is absolutely no reason to have a system in which the President can be somebody most of the voters in the country don't want.

Ivytalk wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
Heaven forbid that the majority of the people would determine who wins the one office elected by all the people in the country.

Again: The Senate provides the buffer for small States. If you're Wyoming you get 2 Senators. If you're California that has 68 times the population of Wyoming you still get 2 Senators. And the Senate has that filibuster thing.

There is absolutely no reason to have a system in which the President can be somebody most of the voters in the country don't want.

You’re probably be of those benighted people who wants a constitutional convention to revisit the whole document.

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: You’re probably be of those benighted people who wants a constitutional convention to revisit the whole document.

Jefferson thought it should happen every 20 years/generation. We’re a little overdue.

css75 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:I'd be fine if we get rid of the Electoral College system and go to using the popular vote to select the President.

I think that the Senate provides a reasonable opportunity for low population States to stay relevant since each State gets two Senators regardless of population.

I would also like to see us go to using algorithms based on looking at geography and population to draw Congressional districts. I'd like to see intentional gerrymandering brought to an end.

I figured it would be you who would like to go to mob rule and let a few select cities and state run the country. Small states and states with large rural areas will never, never willingly change the electoral system.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:
Jefferson thought it should happen every 20 years/generation. We’re a little overdue.

OK, so put klam down for wanting to repeal the whole Bill of Rights. Damn kalmunists.

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: OK, so put klam down for wanting to repeal the whole Bill of Rights. Damn kalmunists.

Objection! Red herring! Hyperbole!

Ivytalk...originalist except when it comes to a prescribed mechanism from the horses mouth to keep the document updated and relevant. And I thought we were making progress with you....

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:
Objection! Red herring! Hyperbole!

Ivytalk...originalist except when it comes to a prescribed mechanism from the horses mouth to keep the document updated and relevant. And I thought we were making progress with you....

If you can think of a way to have a non-runaway Article V convention, let me know. Even if you can limit the scope, it’s not likely that 2/3 of the states will agree on the subject matter for any such convention. The founders omitted time frames for a reason. You’re welcome.

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: You’re probably be of those benighted people who wants a constitutional convention to revisit the whole document.

Jefferson thought it should happen every 20 years/generation. We’re a little overdue.

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: If you can think of a way to have a non-runaway Article V convention, let me know. Even if you can limit the scope, it’s not likely that 2/3 of the states will agree on the subject matter for any such convention. The founders omitted time frames for a reason. You’re welcome.

They did indeed set a high bar and for good reason. Every amendment has been proposed by congress but many of those were initiated by calls for an Article V convention, the threat of which motivated congress to propose a change. Regardless, the remedy was placed in the constitution for a reason, and Jefferson felt it a healthy exercise for a reason. You're welcome.

JohnStOnge wrote:

css75 wrote:

I figured it would be you who would like to go to mob rule and let a few select cities and state run the country. Small states and states with large rural areas will never, never willingly change the electoral system.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Heaven forbid that the majority of the people would determine who wins the one office elected by all the people in the country.

Again: The Senate provides the buffer for small States. If you're Wyoming you get 2 Senators. If you're California that has 68 times the population of Wyoming you still get 2 Senators. And the Senate has that filibuster thing.

There is absolutely no reason to have a system in which the President can be somebody most of the voters in the country don't want.

AshevilleApp wrote:

css75 wrote:

I figured it would be you who would like to go to mob rule and let a few select cities and state run the country. Small states and states with large rural areas will never, never willingly change the electoral system.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Seems like you know a lot about this place and posters in a very short time.

css75 wrote:

AshevilleApp wrote:
Seems like you know a lot about this place and posters in a very short time.

If you read other threads you would know this is jjoey52, I had login problems with Tapatalk so had to get new ID.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk