1752
Not exactly helping the proles.
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2023
1752 points (96.6% liked)
Political Memes
5452 readers
1524 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
But you're supposed to pick a side and be willing to literally lay down your life for them and their cause! Ra ra, go team go. Otherwise you're just part of the problem according to either side.
I agree with you and I'll go a step further and say fuck all politicians in general. Today, they're all owned in some way by the money that puts them in power. They'll all tell you what you want to hear. They're all experts in half truths. Never trust a politician.
Politicians are owned by their constituents, who they overwhelmingly vote in alignment with.
The whole "politicians are owned" thing just doesn't show up in any data whatsoever.
Take one look at who the biggest lobbyists in the US are. Then compare that to the most glaring issues we have in the US. I'll wait.
Here's a link of the top US lobbies, and I'll go ahead and spoil that it isn't what you'd think - for instance, no energy lobby makes the list.
Also, you'd think actual votes would be more along lobbyist lines than constituent lines but they are not.
https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders
NAR for instance would absolutely love zoning changes that create more homes to sell. That's a lobby we should listen to.
But again, we don't, because getting re-elected is always of paramount importance.
You're joking right? https://www.statista.com/statistics/257364/top-lobbying-industries-in-the-us/
From your own source. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2023/02/oil-and-gas-industry-spent-124-4-million-on-federal-lobbying-amid-record-profits-in-2022/#:~:text=The%20oil%20and%20gas%20industry,slightly%20when%20adjusted%20for%20inflation.
And for you last point about NAR, I have doubts. I could see home builders and home buyers benefitting from zoning changes. It would drive down costs of a new home, open up more choices for home buyers, and put construction companies to work. Realtors are middle men who work off commissions. The more they can sell a house for the more commission they make. Realtors have a vested interest keeping the market balanced in their favor.
Realtors with more property to sell make more than realtors with less property to sell. Do you know actual realtors? The vast majority are not selling a few multi-million houses and calling it a year.
Look at what they lobby for: https://www.nar.realtor/advocacy/federal-advocacy/all-federal-issues
Multi-family housing proposals are a core plank of their program, for instance - and yet politicians don't listen to them because their constituents don't want them to
I'm not sure what you think you're arguing when you call me out my link then share data that agrees with my link.
Your preconceived notions are incorrect, and lying about data doesn't make it correct
Yes I do. None of them are selling affordable single family homes.
As a matter of fact multi-family housing is leading a housing construction "boom" as of articles published 6 days ago.
Here's a quote from MReport:
So they are building "multi-family homes", but targeting, wait for it, people with lot's of money.
So you quit lying.
Come to think of it, you're singling out the and focusing on the real estate angle pretty hard. Why is that?
It doesn't matter who they're targeting, because they're increasing supply
You're so desperate to have all lobbyists be inherently bad that you're not thinking things through.
Real estate is easy because local ordinances prevent building, and congresspeople are held accountable locally. We can discuss any lobbying if you'd like and are willing to learn.
I'm a climate lobbyist, for example.
Continuing with the real-estate discussion (I know, now I'm focusing on it ;-) ), I whole heartedly disagree. When ignoring the needs of the lower 75% of the country's wage earners, and focusing your efforts on the upper 25%, something is glaringly, obviously wrong, and saying things like,
shows a level of privilege that most people in the US cannot fathom or afford, myself included. That statement says...a lot, but I don't want to devolve into ad hominin bs because now you've piqued my interest.
Honestly, and I genuinely mean this, yes, I would love to know what a climate lobbyist does.
I know tone doesn't translate via text very well, but I can assure you I'm not desperate to have all lobbyists be inherently bad. Am I angry? Yes, but never desperate, and I'm not angry without reason. I've seen it directly, more than once in my lifetime, politicians and policy be influenced by the efforts of lobbyists and their money. Not just something I read in the news, heard on the radio, or saw on a website. I've seen funding pulled from one project to another because of lobbyists. Not because the project the funding was being pulled from wasn't worthy, but our lobbyists weren't as good (or willing to donate as much) as their lobbyists.
It's a system that allows to much room for abuse, is abused every single day. Even if for something as noble as a climate lobbyist, the quote "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." I would think still rings true (religious connotations notwithstanding).
Now don't ask me how to fix it all because I have no clue. Maybe it's the best we have. I dunno. 😂 I just choose, like I said earlier never to trust a politician. They're all owned in some way by the money that puts them in power.
Edit: I do want to say, I am enjoying this discussion. Thank you for making a long day at the office a little bit more interesting.
If I make a house that sells for a billion dollars, someone with a 900 million dollar house will buy it, and their 900 million dollar home will be bought by someone in an 875 million dollar home, ND that continues all the way down.
No amount of emotional appeal (not an insult to you/your argument) beats supply and demand. I'll take new housing anywhere and anyway I can get it. I'm also for subsidizing weird ways of getting housing like converting office space, though that has potential boondoggle written all over it.
Problem with ending lobbying outright is it is guaranteed as a right in the constitution. I'm all about lobbying reform however, and a general leveling of he playing field. Would love to see more citizen-lobbies, too, and I think it's arguably in the best interests of government to make that easier to do.
And I agree! Nice conversation
I absolutely know what I'm talking about, and it isn't "trickle down" b cause it doesn't involve any additional mechanics other than an increase in supply in a market defined by a massive shortage in supply.
Also rent seeking doesn't mean what you think it means.
Lots of things sound similar. Socialized costs and socialism sound similar, and are not similar at all.
You not understanding the concepts or criticism of "trickle down economics" just means you shouldn't use it as a comparison until you learn more about it, and why it fails.
As a tip, the principal difference is that TDE assumes that cutting taxes for the wealthy will inherently result in business reinvestment, when it clearly does not. This does not rule out all supply-side economics, as renewable energy subsidies and grants have clearly demonstrated. However, demand-side policies are also necessary at times, as in 08 or during COVID.
Increasing supply does always change the supply/demand curve, and we have a massive shortage of supply in the housing market.
I'm curious as to how being a politician is even a job? Do they get salary? If so, from what? How do they pay their mortgages?
Politicians are almost all paid (some things like city council aren't necessarily paid). Many politicians have "day jobs" they only leave once they reach a level of office where they can live off the pay.
Speaking very broadly, the cutoff is generally "state rep or higher" or "in a big city" where you can lean on politician as your main source of income.
I like how "day job" is in quotes. That makes it seem even sketchier than I originally thought lol
what kind of "day jobs" are we talking about here? Are they in an office?
And yeah, how do they have time to be a politician if they have that day job going?
I've worked with local politicians in office settings, as salespeople (trained a city councilwoman as a saleswoman once), etc. They also sometimes own businesses (a bit of selection bias there because that "plays" really well to the electorate).
Most political jobs that aren't state/federal arent very demanding of time. School board, local government, etc, is generally unpaid/low pay and very much part time. If you can carve a couple nights a week, you can work in local gov.
Ah yeah. The kind of people who already had money to start a business in the first place.
That seems like not nearly enough time to be putting into something that is meant to change how things work. Government is incredibly slow though, I'm aware...
None of this is making them sound.. well better.
Most people start a business via a small business loan, which is surprisingly easy (in my view) to qualify for. You also only need like $50 in my state to register as a business owner.
Lots of relatively poor people own their own business. I ran my own consultancy for a while and I was definitely not rich.
Couple nights a week is plenty when you're on city council for a town of 10,000 people. There aren't that many hearings
Now this is really wild to me. If I walked into a place and tried to get a business loan, I guarantee they'd say no to me REAL quick.
I don't think only rich people own businesses but I think people who are able to be in a place financially where they can get a loan to start a business, are probably better off financially than say, some no body like myself.
Jesus... is that based on locality or? That almost sounds like no one is really doing anything. What do they actually do?
Also I want to add, I have thought about getting into politics and the reason I don't is the reasoning behind these questions. I can't imagine having a job and doing this but really only doing it like politics are my hobby and hearings are my little meet ups.
It's definitely by locality, but keep in mind that basically as a matter of course there will always be a shitload more small localities than large. Thus, most politicians aren't paid much. Lots of localities have city councils that yeah, are basically meetups. They'll literally meet in kitchens and shit. I had an embarrassing moment at a state rep dinner at my aunt's house where I didn't silence my phone and my ringtone was hilariously inappropriate. Politics can be extremely local, and I think that's a good thing, even if I personally think it does fuck up a lot of small towns
The numbers can be a touch misleading, since there are a large number of larger towns and cities that do have paid representatives, because the country is absolutely enormous and there are "major" cities everywhere. There are a lot more politicians than you'd think if you really get granular.
Also the key aspects of a business loan are
1: some form of collateral
2: a solid business plan
You bring those things and you can probably start a business.
ah! found it!
I'm someone who doesn't have a form of collateral to give and I assume that there are other people in my poor people group who also lack this and would be unable to start a business of any kind.
In fact, that means a lot of people in the city I live in are unable to start a business.
So it definitely does point to a certain class of people that can start a business and those of us who can't.
I'm definitely going to look into how many hearings are had where I live.
I mean you can start a business without a business loan. I started my LLC with $50 and some cold calls.
You should get involved! Run for office! Volunteer on campaigns! We need more people participating in the process on a local level.
The thing is, if I do that - I won't have a place to live afterwards. My rent is going up $45 in a few months. I currently make $36 an hour and they're talking about paying me more and putting me on salary.
I do want to be more involved but it really seems blocked off for regular people who have to have full time jobs. Without my full time job I'm pretty much fucked.
Starting a business involves a lot of risk. Some people dive in, some people (like me) start it as a side gig.
If it's your dream, work incessantly toward it and you'll get there.
oh yeah, its not really my dream lol
I'm more interested in just making changes in general but government of course stands in my way.