The Coffee Party in the focus.

[ginnyfizz]

You make an interesting point, Sinophile, with that graph.

 

I certainly agree that corporate money should not be able to buy off the political process. However, I feel there is also a danger in having too many career public servants and not enough people with experience outside politics in any government. Having such a bee in the bonnet about the wicked corporate influence could mean that the legitimate contribution of business persons to the economy, and their right to be heard, will be brushed aside. You need companies staying based in your country and creating wealth and jobs, rather than driving them abroad.

[evilneko]

According to Conservapedia, that isn't necessarily a good thing. They made this neat little graph that claims Obama has less cabinet members in the private sector than anyone else in the past 108 years since the industrial revolution.

 

Considering the misinformation and outright falsehoods that plague other areas of Conservapedia, I'd want corroborating sources for that.

 

Actually, nevermind: I found the original source and the debunking. A little bit of verification later (mainly from reading bios of the persons in question, something Beck and other conservatives should've done before running with such a claim), I'm convinced the graph does not reflect reality at all.

 

 

Having such a bee in the bonnet about the wicked corporate influence could mean that the legitimate contribution of business persons to the economy, and their right to be heard, will be brushed aside.

 

But is their right greater than that of anyone else? That's the problem with corporate influence today. They have more power than they should. It should be individuals--be they CEOs, farmers, factory workers, or middle managers--telling government what to do, not huge lobbying checks. The business people themselves have a right to be heard, sure. But they should do it the same way we do: with votes.