Why do our laws favor the rich?

[ThomWV]

This won't be news to anyone, just a reminder: Why do our laws favor the rich?" That was meant to be a rhetorical question.

"the average lawmaker is far wealthier than his or her typical constituent. While about one percent of Americans are millionaires, 44 percent of those serving in Congress can claim as much."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5553408-503544.html

[vi5]

1. It's that....

..and that also has led them to believe that supply side, trickle down economics works as an indisputable fact. Therefore every legislation, even legislation whose sole primary goal is to help the middle and working class, starts from a point of "O.K. we have to keep the supply side happy and the wealthy happy."

[DrDan]

2. Rick Scott, running for Gov of Florida, has spent nearly $25M . . . . most of it his personal money

why would anyone do that if not for the money to be made after being elected.

[dkf]

6. Because it's an ego trip?

[DrDan]

17. lots of ways to feed a large ego for a lot less that $12-15M

[dkf]

18. Why did Ned Lamont do it?

They have enough money but not enough power.

[DrDan]

19. who knows - I just have a feeling that Rick Scott sees a lot more dollars in winning this election

[dkf]

20. Your cronies get rich. Not so much you yourself.

[DrDan]

21. not so sure about that . . . . the bush family did not sacrifice a minute of

gathering wealth through Jeb's term. His "educational reform" alone must have brought millions and millions into the BFEE.

[dkf]

22. His crony would be his brother.

[DrDan]

23. and Jeb received no rewards?

[dkf]

26. I can't imagine any state would allow a conflict of interest that obvious.

[DrDan]

29. .

"Once in office elected officials tend to get far richer than they were when they entered politics. They are cut in on various deals. They become unusually successful investors. Empirical investigation reveals that in any given year between 1993 and 1998 senators who played the stock market did remarkably well. It turns out they were prescient in anticipating the market’s movements up and down, purchasing a particular stock before it took off like a rocket and dumping stocks just in time. Consider a landmark study in the Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, which took eight years to complete because there was no data base from which the scholars could work and they had to develop one, gathering and examining data manually. They found that the stock portfolios of a random group composed of tens of thousands of households underperformed the market as a whole by 1.4 percent annually. Corporate insiders beat the market by 6 percent. But the senators (including their spouses and children) beat the market by 12 percent a year.3 The study reminds one of the findings of U.S. Senate Banking Committee counsel Ferdinand Pecora who in 1933 exposed how J. P. Morgan had reserved shares for certain clients—FDR’s secretary of the treasury, the chairmen of both the Republican and Democratic National Committees, and others. It also brings to mind Mark Twain’s observation that “if your congressman comes back to your state to run for re-election and is not a millionaire, he is a fool and should be turned out of office.”"

http://monthlyreview.org/0706tabb.htm

[dkf]

30. It's the speeches and the memoirs if anything.

Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Palin...

[LostinVA]

3. Because the Rich make the laws and run the government

[ixion]

4. Because the rich write the laws

n/t

[TheCowsCameHome]

7. Beat me to it.

:hi:

[Stuart G]

9. Me too...

[SocialistLez]

15. Bingo!! NT

[MrScorpio]

5. When multi-millionaires spend a fortune to get elected to a job that pays around a couple 100 grand

Then it's no wonder how we've ended up in this mess

[RKP5637]

8. IMO people don't pay enough attention to whom they are voting for, what they

are really about. Money and power often go together, so the gravitation toward political office often slants toward money and power. Hence those in political positions often have a fair amount of wealth, and they will do little to affect their wealth.

Hence, we end up with reaganomics, voodoo economics or trickle down economics with this inane idea that if the wealthy benefit, the economy will always benefit for all and hence our laws favor the wealthy. Again, IMO, Americans are lethargic and asleep at the wheel, not paying enough attention to whom they are voting for. Americans are famous for voting in those least interested in the voters interests. And politicians are famous for pushing the hot buttons and wedge issues of voters to get their vote, the politicians elected often having agendas diametrically opposed to the best interests of the voters.

Look, for example, at NutMeg Whitman in CA having spent over $104M of her own money to date trying to get elected as gov. Does that mean she will be a good gov. having spent millions to try to get elected. I doubt it... She is just buying the vote...

[AndyA]

10. We have the best government money can buy.

And how is it that virtually all Congress people leave office multi-millionaires? They surely aren't paid that much while in office.

That's why our laws favor the rich.

[uncommon]

11. I was going to say...

because the people who make the laws are rich. But that was your point.

[liberal N proud]

12. And they have made it impossible for those who have less than they do

to become a lawmaker.

[OHdem10]

13. Actually when Reagan came into office, he had one important

goal, to institute the "Free Market". It was believed
that giving Business and Corporations, the freedom
liberty the country would prosper. The Invisible
Hand would right and self correct any mistakes.
Thus Conservative Economic Fundamentalism became the
standard. Deregulation and tax breaks and special
waivers for Business and the rest is history.

This structure means the rich who are already adevantaged
just get richer. The Middle Class have their jobs
relocated to countries where labor is cheapest, thus
they have consistently lost ground financially over
last 30 some years. The Working Poor and Poor have
just become poorer, some making a permanent underclass.

Yes, most Congressmen are rich. This is a side issue.
Both parties have been forced to look for candidates
who have the money to finance their own campaigns.
Being rich is not a bad thing. Ted Kennedy was very
rich but tried to always help the less fortunate.

The present system was put into practice under Reagan
with Democratic Votes. Watch those Conservadems.

[Zoeisright]

14. Because the rich wrote them.

Simple.

[11 Bravo]

16. Beat me to it.

[RadiationTherapy]

24. George Michaels passed out behind the wheel of his car (again) and crashed into a photo shop.

The judge said he was "very close to going to prison" since it is the second time he has been found unconscious from drugs (GHB this time) behind the wheel of a car.

[jtown1123]

25. Because the rich

are able to donate the most to these campaigns, therefore get favorable laws in return.

[Dragonfli]

27. Because our politicians are for sale and they are the high bid? /nt

[johnlucas]

28. Because they are written by them

Why do laws favor the rich?
Because they are written by them, that's why.

It's not just our laws but it's laws in every country on Earth.
Those in power set up the rulebook to preserve their power.
Pretty much why they call them 'rulers'. They set up the rules.

But you know that thing about rules, right?
They are made to be broken.

I'd say take it further & break the rulemaker.
John Lucas

[slampoet]

31. They wrote the laws.

[blindpig]

32. Well, the responses thus are unanimous....

the rich own the electoral process.

So what ya'll gonna do about it? Vote & hope that the rich and their tools legislate against themselves?

I suppose that the Capitalists will just go away too if we ask nicely...

[tavalon]

33. Because the rich make the laws

I knew it was rhetorical but I have a compulsive need to hit the lob.

[mike r]

34. Because of the Golden Rule

which is from the Bible, according to lawmakers. :sarcasm:

[unblock]

35. why on earth would they buy laws that favor the poor?