Then naturally it's best if the wealthy enter government (even if they have to buy their way in) and begin legislating themselves still further advantage, because that would make, "usually", government smarter, and then government will create more jobs.
If one wants to serve in the Government, let them do so. Otherwise, work in the private business sector of the economy. As far as legislating advantages, that's what the unions do and that's why what happened in Wisconsin is so important. Not to mention the new plantation overseers, like the folks in the congressional black caucus, Jackson, Sharpton, et al, including Obama himself. Many of these people need the poor, lots of them, because that's where they get their power and wealth from. We focus on rewarding poverty as a matter of policy and that's what we get - reward wealth and that's what you will get, for everyone.
"Let them do so", based on your argument, is too weak. We should encourage, even subsidize, their entry to government, because we'll all be better off for it.
You're obviously upset, frustrated even distraught over the Wisconsin voters denouncement of public sector unions. It IS entertaining to watch though.
Lets analyze the most prevalent response that I'm hearing: "Walker only won because he spent 4:1 (Tuesday night), 5:1 (Wednesday night), 7:1 (today's story). Their point being, I guess, that if the candidates had spent 1:1 then the Democrat would have won. Its ridiculous. If Walker was able to raise more money it is because he had more support. That is how American politics works. It isn't some communist notion of fiscal equality between campaigns. It is a manifestation of democracy conducted in a capitalist society. He who raises the most money generally wins. Liberal policies were defeated by a large margin in a swing state 5 months before a Presidential election. If anyone believes that doesn't worry Barrack Obama then I think they are being dishonest with themselves. One very notable thing about the Walker recall election was the clear offset between the exit poll results and the real outcome. There was a very clear ~10 point offset between the exit polling results and the results based on real votes. This puts every national poll into doubt and supports the idea that Romney is actually 12-15 points ahead of Obama and that Romney is ahead in almost *all* of the so-called swing states. It seems to me that there is a real possibility that Barrack Obama is going to be defeated in his reelection bid. For Romney to be able to enact his agenda for economic recovery the republicans would have to take the Senate as well. I'm not familiar enough with the individual senate races to be able to comment meaningfully on them but I'm hoping that taking the senate is a possibility. Harry Reid has been very destructive as senate leader and he needs to be put onto the back-bench.
The only people who can do that are politicians or their cronies, so save me your fear mongering drivel.
Let's sing because it's not over and we didn't lose!! <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Ro6Qfm1ySKQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The Solution... Ban public sector employee unions. Ban defined benefit pensions (at tax payer expense) for public employees... replace with 401k-type benefit. GIVE THE TIT-SUCKERS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Make them EARN everything they get. Then this BS stops. Nobody is "entitled" to another citizen's property.