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