I used the wrong terms...I should have used the term plutacracy. To WB, Mr. 300, Mr JHay, QO, and in some respects Sparky, what's your take on pultacracy? From wiki.....
"Modern politics
The second usage of plutocracy is a pejorative reference to a disproportionate influence the wealthy have on political process in contemporary society: for example Kevin Phillips, author and political strategist to U.S. President Richard Nixon, argues that the United States is a plutocracy in which there is a "fusion of money and government."[3]
The influence the wealthy minority of the population has over the political arena includes campaign contributions, as well as bribing to achieve corporate objectives (exclusively profit related), refusing to support the government financially by refusing to pay taxes, threatening to move profitable industries elsewhere, and essentially any form of manipulation of the government. It can also be exerted by the owners and ad buyers of media properties which can shape public perception of political issues (see also: fourth estate).
Recently, there have been numerous cases of wealthy individuals and organizations exerting financial pressure on governments to pass favorable legislation (see also: Lobbying). Most western democracies permit partisan organizations to raise funds for politicians, and it is well-known that political parties frequently accept significant donations from various individuals (either directly or through corporate, labour union, or other advocacy groups). These donations may be part of a cronyist or patronage system. Some describe these donations as bribes, although legally they are not unless a quid pro quo exists. Ostensibly, campaign donations should have no effect on the legislative decisions of elected representatives[says who?]; however it would be unlikely that no politicians are influenced by these contributions.
In the United States, campaign finance reform efforts seek to ameliorate this situation. However, campaign finance reform must successfully challenge officials who are beneficiaries of the system which allows this dynamic in the first place. This has led many reform advocates to suggest taxpayer dollars be used to replace private campaign contributions; these reforms are often called clean money or clean election reform as opposed to simply campaign finance reform which does not address the conflict of interest involved where most or all of the campaign money is from private, often for-profit sources. Critics of clean elections point out that it allows the sitting government to decide which candidates would qualify to receive tax dollars - and therefore influence who would be allowed to win - thus solving one problem by creating another problem; courts in the U.S.A. have also agreed that some "clean election" legislation has discriminated against independent or third-party candidates, and has violated the constitution".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy
I actually read a book by Kevin Phillips awhile ago. He's a smart man...and I agree with him that the US is a plutocracy. And before people start playing the "Phillips is a flaming liberal" card...better check his background.
I don't think there is anybody around that wants to see any system that punishes the successful. But the fact is, the divide between the haves and have nots continues to widen, not just here in the states, but in Europe too. Is this what we really want? This is one area where I part ways with the libertarians who speak out of both sides of their mouth. If you have a true free market economy without any government, well then enjoy the imminent 2 class society, sans a middle class, with an unemployment rate of 35% in America with starving people. Because that is exactly what you will get.
Answer: The commander in Chief
