In other words, you cannot tell us about a vote your rep made that was "bought" by campaign contributions. Can you tell us how your rep voted on any piece of legislation? I can't tell you how mine voted on any issue. So, we're sure they are corrupt and being bribed but we have no clue how they have ever voted. We just repeat the "corrupt politician" cliche that simplifies more complex reality.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Number of billionaires INCREASES as rest of the country burns
- Thread starter Cinnabar
- Start date
In other words, you cannot tell us about a vote your rep made that was "bought" by campaign contributions. Can you tell us how your rep voted on any piece of legislation? I can't tell you how mine voted on any issue. So, we're sure they are corrupt and being bribed but we have no clue how they have ever voted. We just repeat the "corrupt politician" cliche that simplifies more complex reality.
In other words, you cannot tell us about a vote your rep made that was "bought" by campaign contributions. Can you tell us how your rep voted on any piece of legislation? I can't tell you how mine voted on any issue. So, we're sure they are corrupt and being bribed but we have no clue how they have ever voted. We just repeat the "corrupt politician" cliche that simplifies more complex reality.
In other words, I have told you how it really works. You are just spending time protecting crooked politicians and lobbyists. Is that what you do? A lobbyist?
In other words, I have told you how it really works. You are just spending time protecting crooked politicians and lobbyists. Is that what you do? A lobbyist?
You told us your view of how it works. It is like an old wife's tale. It is not based on any research or studies that have analyzed this subject.
That same generalization must also apply to presidents. They take bribes in the form of campaign contributions and do whatever lobbyists tell them. If that is true of members of Congress it is equally true of presidents.
Please give us an example of a vote made by your Rep or Sen in which they took bribes. If it is true, you must have some examples.
You told us your view of how it works. It is like an old wife's tale. It is not based on any research or studies that have analyzed this subject.
That same generalization must also apply to presidents. They take bribes in the form of campaign contributions and do whatever lobbyists tell them. If that is true of members of Congress it is equally true of presidents.
Please give us an example of a vote made by your Rep or Sen in which they took bribes. If it is true, you must have some examples.
It is not a wives tale and you know it. It is fact. Once again, why are you defending crooked politicians and lobbyists?
It is not a wives tale and you know it. It is fact. Once again, why are you defending crooked politicians and lobbyists?
Why do you refuse to back up your claim? Just claiming someone is corrupt does not make it so.
Give us an example of a vote by your rep that was corrupt because he was bribed by campaign contributions. What was a decision made by Presidents Bush, Obama, and Trump that they were bribed to make?
Why do you refuse to back up your claim? Just claiming someone is corrupt does not make it so.
Give us an example of a vote by your rep that was corrupt because he was bribed by campaign contributions. What was a decision made by Presidents Bush, Obama, and Trump that they were bribed to make?
Here are a couple of intellectual links to help you educate yourself. They might have too many big words for you. See if you can make a coherent argument about them. And I am still asking, why are you defending crooked politicians and lobbyists? You fail to answer that simple question.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/lsq.12266
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41309-018-0031-7
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2014/05/02/88917/how-campaign-contributions-and-lobbying-can-lead-to-inefficient-economic-policy/
I seriously doubt there are many societies in which those in the bottom 20% go to the top 20%; especially when 60% of those at the bottom do not work. What is more important is that those on the bottom rose to higher quintiles. According to the Treasury Department study using IRS data:
--50% of those in the bottom quintile moved to a higher income category within 10 years
--of those in the top 1/100 of one percent only 25% remained there within 10 years
--The degree of mobility among income groups is unchanged from the prior decade (1987 through 1996).
--Median real incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation
--Median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the high income groups.
https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/hp673.aspx
First of all you are using a study that is 15 years old.
Secondly the study uses IRS data which isn't as accurate as census data since those not owing income tax don't have to file tax returns so wouldn't be counted.
You make the unsupported claim that 60% of those in the bottom don't work. According to IRS data, about 35% of tax returns in the bottom 2 quintiles are from taxpayers 65 and over. Who are in these 8 million households that don't work and are under 65? Why are they filing income tax returns if they don't work? What kind of income are the receiving that somehow allows them to not work but still have to pay income tax?
--50% of those in the bottom quintile moved to a higher income category within 10 years
A rather meaningless statistic. Someone making $12 an hour is in the bottom quintile. Someone making $13 an hour is in the 2nd to the bottom quintile. Movement between the bottom 2 quintiles would be expected based on having a job long enough to get a raise or losing that job. As the study points out this is more a factor of life span than any real movement. Young people start out in the lower quintiles, move up as the work and then fall back later. The only way to read this study is to compare it to previous time periods using the same method and look for changes. The changes are that more people in the upper quintiles tended to stay in the upper quintiles. So the changes were mostly shuffling who was in the lower quintiles.
Here are a couple of intellectual links to help you educate yourself. They might have too many big words for you. See if you can make a coherent argument about them. And I am still asking, why are you defending crooked politicians and lobbyists? You fail to answer that simple question.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/lsq.12266
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41309-018-0031-7
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2014/05/02/88917/how-campaign-contributions-and-lobbying-can-lead-to-inefficient-economic-policy/
I'm familiar with the studies. As the research from your article summarizes:
"An extensive literature on PAC contributions has largely failed to identify systematic evidence of PAC-money-induced legislative behavior (for reviews of this literature, see Baumgartner and Leech 1998; Smith 1995; Richter et al. 2009).
I'm familiar with the studies. As the research from your article summarizes:
"An extensive literature on PAC contributions has largely failed to identify systematic evidence of PAC-money-induced legislative behavior (for reviews of this literature, see Baumgartner and Leech 1998; Smith 1995; Richter et al. 2009).
Nice try at cherry picking. And failing again. Seriously, give it up. You are just a hack.
Nice try at cherry picking. And failing again. Seriously, give it up. You are just a hack.
It is not "cherry picking" when summarizing available research on the effects of lobbying and contributions. It is looking at all relevant past studies.
Even the newly conducted study of lobbyists personal contributions concluded:
"For several reasons, I stop short of arguing that this analysis proves that lobbyists make campaign contributions in a strategic effort to “buy” desired policy outcomes."
"An additional reason I do not argue that lobbyists have succeeded in purchasing influence with their contributions is that I have not identified here any specific link between lobbyists’ contributions and enhanced access or influence for contributing lobbyists."
If you are going to cite studies, you need to find some that support your claim.
It is not "cherry picking" when summarizing available research on the effects of lobbying and contributions. It is looking at all relevant past studies.
Even the newly conducted study of lobbyists personal contributions concluded:
"For several reasons, I stop short of arguing that this analysis proves that lobbyists make campaign contributions in a strategic effort to “buy” desired policy outcomes."
"An additional reason I do not argue that lobbyists have succeeded in purchasing influence with their contributions is that I have not identified here any specific link between lobbyists’ contributions and enhanced access or influence for contributing lobbyists."
If you are going to cite studies, you need to find some that support your claim.
They all support my claim.