Ok.....according to Tony:

Wealth is a resource that is very useful in excercising power. Donations to political parties and candidates, hiring lobbyists,  grants and payments to experts to fund new "studies" that benefit the wealthy. Influence in  corporations (via ownership of stock) and even controlling the general social enviroment by hiring PR firms and downating money to universities and museums.

Armed with all this money and power, the rich have been able to effectively get legislation passed that helps them get richer still.

Then how come Republicans are not holding more offices, for are they not reported as greedy, in the pockets of, etc?
Then using your reasoning, and seeing the results of recent elections, its the Democrats that benefited by what you report, eh?  

raydawg wrote on 09/03/13 at 15:58:45:


Ray, honestly I'm not even sure what you are saying or asking. I never mentioned any political party - and I'll explain why of that in a second.

As far as the "success" of the republicans - just not occupying the White House hardly qualifies the party as a failure. They have a solid control of the House and a large enough presence in the Senate to matter.  But more importantly - the Repubs have enjoyed a GREAT deal of success in capturing governships and house/senate in the individual states. The have well over 1/2 of those. Local elections btw are much more easily influenced by $$. The presidential candidates of the two major parties are always going to have enough money to at least be competitive.

But as to why I never mentioned political parties. I suggested the RICH AND POWERFUL run the country. That doesn't change much regardless of electing democrats or republicans.

Ralph Nader - the consumer advocate, political activist and sometimes (third party) Presidential candidate wrote a book entitled "Crashing the Party" about his 2000 Presidental campaign. I believe he was he Green Party candidate that year.

Anyway, in his book he spoke of attending both the Democrat and Republican conventions. On the floor, things looked very different between the two. Different people, different values, different party platforms. BUT - go in the back rooms - and you saw a lot of the SAME people. Most of the RICH and POWERFUL hedge their bets. They want to make sure that their views are represented - no matter who wins.

So it really - sad to say - makes only a little bit of difference who is elected for the rich. Sure, a democrat might throw a few more loaves of bread to the masses and talk about raising taxes on the wealthy. But a lot of that talk goes no where.  Because it does not really matter what party brand politicians wear, cash is king and they have to follow the money

Midnight -
You make my point exactly.  Meaningful post high school education isn't always a college degree.  Vocational education is a lot more important for a lot more people.
My point was simply that stopping one's training with a general high school diploma was fine in the 1950s, but it doesn't make the cut today.

WebsterMark wrote on 09/04/13 at 05:21:34:


Elections can matter if idealogy matters to you. So for instance with presidential elections, the ability to name Supreme Court justices can and will influence a conservative or liberal bent to the court. Except that even Presidents get surprise. Justices are people and people opinions and values can evolve over time.

But does ideology matter that much to the rich? Enough money allows one to transcend a lot of ideology. What does it matter if abortion is illegal in Arkansas  you can afford to go to New York. Or if you have the money to maintain a villa in France? What does it matter if gay marriage is not recognized in America when again you can go get married and spend your honeymoon in country  that does?

Don't get me wrong - it should be obvious to all that I have a solid ideology (neo-conservative) and that it matters to me. But I don't think the 1% spend much time worrying about guns, gays and abortion. Their status lifts them above such concerns.  Their main concern is maintaining and improving on a status quo that gives them a great deal of power, freedom, a sense of superiority and just a lot of great "stuff".

I don't have any belief at all that presidents of a different party would act all that differently on the world stage. Bush's grudge against Saddam was personal - but I think anyone in the whitehouse would have headed for Afganistan after 911.

As for Obama care, your statement is a bit over the top. How health care is funded and paid for is not going to "kill this country". All of Western Europe, Britain, Japan, New Zeland, Australia - the list would be exhausting - have some sort of national health insurance and they have continued to survive and remain democracies. America will be just fine on Jan 1, 2014.  And if we aren't fine, it won't be because of the Affordable Care act.

Jerry Eichenberger wrote on 09/03/13 at 15:55:48:

Jerry its not about paying off Federal Debt, its about fairness. Upper Managements salaries have gone up over 500% in the last few years while the people that manufacture the product have lost almost 50% of their salaries and benefits. There's plenty of money to go around fairly but greed is destroying us. I don't want to hear about how valuable a CEO is and how he's worth his pay. Costco has a great CEO who gets paid very well and he looks after his employees with great salaries and benefits. That's how its supposed to be done.Here in NC if you hire a temp less than 120 days no benefits. Every 120 days they change temps. They'll pay in the end one way or another. The quality of the product is going to be almost nonexistent with a changing workforce every 3 months and I remember reading something about the eye of a needle.