Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 18, 2014, 06:41:43 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: True Federalist, Former Moderate, Badger)
| | |-+  Do the rich and powerful "own" both parties?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: Do the rich and powerful "own" both parties?  (Read 1543 times)
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26851
United States


View Profile
« on: May 30, 2012, 04:30:55 pm »
Ignore

Jay Cost thinks so. What do you think?  By the way, he missed the pension plan scandal (probably the biggest tax loophole out there for high income earners), contributions of appreciated art to charity (you get the deduction on the appreciation, but don't have to pay the capital gains tax),  life insurance and single premium deferred annuities (which have tax deferral and tax forgiveness aspects on the income earned on the cash surrender value, plus an estate tax dodge to boot), and that is before we get to all the subsidies you are now paying me to be an absentee landlord farmer now - all administered by a phalanx of bureaucrats. And I am just getting started. Cheers.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2012, 05:38:53 pm by Torie »Logged

Senator Meiji (D-NC)
sjoycefla
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8303
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.03, S: -8.96

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: May 30, 2012, 05:21:43 pm »
Ignore

They're really the same thing. Tell me this: which party opposes the Bush tax cuts? Which one opposes free trade? Which one want to shrink defense spending? Which ones oppose drones and Guantanamo? Which one opposes the Patriot Act? Which one opposes staying in Afghanistan? Which one will actually balance the budget? Which one actually supports gay marriage (not this states decide stuff)? Which one opposes the War on Drugs? The answer to all these questions is neither; them both being controlled by the same interests is simply a continuation of that.
Logged

Frodo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13287
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: May 30, 2012, 05:44:06 pm »
Ignore

Hasn't it always been this way, through deliberate design?  With the possible exception of the Jacksonian era, there hasn't been a period in American history when the elites haven't controlled the political life of this country.  It's worth remembering who were present at the continental congresses, and who helped shape the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution of the United States -the elites of each of the 13 original colonies.  
« Last Edit: May 30, 2012, 05:46:34 pm by Frodo »Logged

and then a skeleton popped out
Ghost_white
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3420


Political Matrix
E: -4.97, S: 7.39

View Profile
« Reply #3 on: May 30, 2012, 06:10:52 pm »
Ignore

They're really the same thing. Tell me this: which party opposes the Bush tax cuts?
the democrats
Logged


That has got to be one of the most retarded proposals I have read on this forum.

Don't worry, I'm sure more will crop up shortly.
Senator Meiji (D-NC)
sjoycefla
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8303
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.03, S: -8.96

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: May 30, 2012, 06:29:01 pm »
Ignore

They're really the same thing. Tell me this: which party opposes the Bush tax cuts?
the democrats

Then why did it pass the Democratic Senate in 2010 81-19? One would think that if the Democrats opposed it, they could have voted against it...
Logged

Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15634


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: May 30, 2012, 06:51:05 pm »
Ignore

Where Democrats fail on this front, it's because they're not liberal enough. Unfortunately, Republicans have succeeded in moving the political spectrum so far to the right, even their own previous policies are now called socialism. What hope is there then, for sanity?
Logged

Brian Schweitzer '16
and then a skeleton popped out
Ghost_white
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3420


Political Matrix
E: -4.97, S: 7.39

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: May 30, 2012, 06:57:21 pm »
Ignore

They're really the same thing. Tell me this: which party opposes the Bush tax cuts?
the democrats

Then why did it pass the Democratic Senate in 2010 81-19? One would think that if the Democrats opposed it, they could have voted against it...
a temporary extension with unemployment insurance and 'working class tax cuts' is not the same thing as supporting the bush tax cuts. don't confuse caution with support of something. also change the avatar, please. we have enough confused people on this site as it is.
Logged


That has got to be one of the most retarded proposals I have read on this forum.

Don't worry, I'm sure more will crop up shortly.
Senator Meiji (D-NC)
sjoycefla
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8303
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.03, S: -8.96

View Profile
« Reply #7 on: May 30, 2012, 07:09:10 pm »
Ignore

They're really the same thing. Tell me this: which party opposes the Bush tax cuts?
the democrats

Then why did it pass the Democratic Senate in 2010 81-19? One would think that if the Democrats opposed it, they could have voted against it...
a temporary extension with unemployment insurance and 'working class tax cuts' is not the same thing as supporting the bush tax cuts. don't confuse caution with support of something. also change the avatar, please. we have enough confused people on this site as it is.

Unemployment insurance was part of it, which was put in as part of a compromise deal which also included extending all EGTRRA and JGTRRA cuts, including cuts to tax rates on the non-working classes. And change the avatar to what? The Constitution Party seems like a bunch of theocrats, Greens seem too hippie-ish, there's no real "Other" I'm that attracted to, I'm not joining the party of Bush, I've been politely asked to leave the Democrats, Natural Law Party is weird, and it's lonely as an independent.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2012, 07:16:01 pm by SoEA SJoyceFla »Logged

Senator Alfred F. Jones
Alfred F. Jones
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7545
United States


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: May 30, 2012, 07:25:39 pm »
Ignore

Which one opposes staying in Afghanistan? Which one will actually balance the budget? Which one actually supports gay marriage (not this states decide stuff)?
Democrats. And they'd do the other stuff too, if they weren't spineless cowards.
Logged



Alfred is the only acceptable option

Clinton they've discovered our lovechild Sad

and then a skeleton popped out
Ghost_white
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3420


Political Matrix
E: -4.97, S: 7.39

View Profile
« Reply #9 on: May 30, 2012, 07:28:45 pm »
Ignore

Which one opposes staying in Afghanistan? Which one will actually balance the budget? Which one actually supports gay marriage (not this states decide stuff)?
Democrats. And they'd do the other stuff too, if they weren't spineless cowards.
no
Logged


That has got to be one of the most retarded proposals I have read on this forum.

Don't worry, I'm sure more will crop up shortly.
and then a skeleton popped out
Ghost_white
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3420


Political Matrix
E: -4.97, S: 7.39

View Profile
« Reply #10 on: May 30, 2012, 07:31:57 pm »
Ignore

They're really the same thing. Tell me this: which party opposes the Bush tax cuts?
the democrats

Then why did it pass the Democratic Senate in 2010 81-19? One would think that if the Democrats opposed it, they could have voted against it...
a temporary extension with unemployment insurance and 'working class tax cuts' is not the same thing as supporting the bush tax cuts. don't confuse caution with support of something. also change the avatar, please. we have enough confused people on this site as it is.

Unemployment insurance was part of it, which was put in as part of a compromise deal which also included extending all EGTRRA and JGTRRA cuts, including cuts to tax rates on the non-working classes. And change the avatar to what? The Constitution Party seems like a bunch of theocrats, Greens seem too hippie-ish, there's no real "Other" I'm that attracted to, I'm not joining the party of Bush, I've been politely asked to leave the Democrats, Natural Law Party is weird, and it's lonely as an independent.
you're not a 'right libertarian.' and trust me i don't fit into any political party in the us regardless of what i'm registered as.
Logged


That has got to be one of the most retarded proposals I have read on this forum.

Don't worry, I'm sure more will crop up shortly.
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26605
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 30, 2012, 07:33:16 pm »

Natural Law Party is weird

I thought the Natural Law Party was no more since the guru who sponsored decided not to dabble in politics any more.  I know when that happened, the Greens took over the South Carolina party to gain their ballot access.  (South Carolina's ballot access laws make it moderately difficult but not impossible for a new party to get on the ballot, but once on the ballot, it is absurdly easy for them to stay on it, so several minor parties that in other states would have just faded away have instead been taken over so as to gain ballot access in that fashion since its easier.)
Logged

Daily Reflections on the Revised Common Lectionary

Bible thumping kept to a minimum unless you go to sleep!
The below comic stars me!
Ready For Hoover '28!
Mechaman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13382
Jamaica


Political Matrix
E: -6.13, S: -8.26

View Profile
« Reply #12 on: May 30, 2012, 07:33:27 pm »
Ignore

They're really the same thing. Tell me this: which party opposes the Bush tax cuts?
the democrats

Then why did it pass the Democratic Senate in 2010 81-19? One would think that if the Democrats opposed it, they could have voted against it...
a temporary extension with unemployment insurance and 'working class tax cuts' is not the same thing as supporting the bush tax cuts. don't confuse caution with support of something. also change the avatar, please. we have enough confused people on this site as it is.

Unemployment insurance was part of it, which was put in as part of a compromise deal which also included extending all EGTRRA and JGTRRA cuts, including cuts to tax rates on the non-working classes. And change the avatar to what? The Constitution Party seems like a bunch of theocrats, Greens seem too hippie-ish, there's no real "Other" I'm that attracted to, I'm not joining the party of Bush, I've been politely asked to leave the Democrats, Natural Law Party is weird, and it's lonely as an independent.

Hey man, sometimes not being a part of a political clique is for the best.

I've taken that route, and I can say I'm a lot happier for it.

Well, I am a registered Republican, but I think it's safe to say I don't have near the same views as an average.
Logged

Joe Republic
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29562
United States


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: May 30, 2012, 07:49:47 pm »
Ignore

Of course they do, but the ones who own the Democratic Party ostensibly possess consciences.
Logged
Senator Meiji (D-NC)
sjoycefla
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8303
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.03, S: -8.96

View Profile
« Reply #14 on: May 30, 2012, 08:00:13 pm »
Ignore

Natural Law Party is weird

I thought the Natural Law Party was no more since the guru who sponsored decided not to dabble in politics any more.  I know when that happened, the Greens took over the South Carolina party to gain their ballot access.  (South Carolina's ballot access laws make it moderately difficult but not impossible for a new party to get on the ballot, but once on the ballot, it is absurdly easy for them to stay on it, so several minor parties that in other states would have just faded away have instead been taken over so as to gain ballot access in that fashion since its easier.)

I believe a handful of state branches of them are still up and running while the rest have closed down.
They're really the same thing. Tell me this: which party opposes the Bush tax cuts?
the democrats

Then why did it pass the Democratic Senate in 2010 81-19? One would think that if the Democrats opposed it, they could have voted against it...
a temporary extension with unemployment insurance and 'working class tax cuts' is not the same thing as supporting the bush tax cuts. don't confuse caution with support of something. also change the avatar, please. we have enough confused people on this site as it is.

Unemployment insurance was part of it, which was put in as part of a compromise deal which also included extending all EGTRRA and JGTRRA cuts, including cuts to tax rates on the non-working classes. And change the avatar to what? The Constitution Party seems like a bunch of theocrats, Greens seem too hippie-ish, there's no real "Other" I'm that attracted to, I'm not joining the party of Bush, I've been politely asked to leave the Democrats, Natural Law Party is weird, and it's lonely as an independent.
you're not a 'right libertarian.' and trust me i don't fit into any political party in the us regardless of what i'm registered as.

I'm not, but it's closer to me than anything else. At least I agree on social and foreign policy, which is more than I can say for the other parties.

Which one opposes staying in Afghanistan? Which one will actually balance the budget? Which one actually supports gay marriage (not this states decide stuff)?
Democrats. And they'd do the other stuff too, if they weren't spineless cowards.

We're still in Afghanistan, we still have trillion-dollar-deficits, and
Which one actually supports gay marriage (not this states decide stuff)?
Logged

bgwah
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13659
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -6.96

View Profile
« Reply #15 on: May 30, 2012, 11:08:05 pm »
Ignore

Depends how you classify unions...
Logged

Senator Alfred F. Jones
Alfred F. Jones
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7545
United States


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: May 31, 2012, 05:28:48 am »
Ignore

Which one opposes staying in Afghanistan? Which one will actually balance the budget? Which one actually supports gay marriage (not this states decide stuff)?
Democrats. And they'd do the other stuff too, if they weren't spineless cowards.

We're still in Afghanistan, we still have trillion-dollar-deficits, and
Which one actually supports gay marriage (not this states decide stuff)?
[/quote]
We're on track to leave Afghanistan, which Bush didn't do, and may I remind you that the last president to balance the budget was Clinton?
Logged



Alfred is the only acceptable option

Clinton they've discovered our lovechild Sad

Senator Meiji (D-NC)
sjoycefla
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8303
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.03, S: -8.96

View Profile
« Reply #17 on: May 31, 2012, 06:12:58 am »
Ignore

Which one opposes staying in Afghanistan? Which one will actually balance the budget? Which one actually supports gay marriage (not this states decide stuff)?
Democrats. And they'd do the other stuff too, if they weren't spineless cowards.

We're still in Afghanistan, we still have trillion-dollar-deficits, and
Which one actually supports gay marriage (not this states decide stuff)?
We're on track to leave Afghanistan, which Bush didn't do, and may I remind you that the last president to balance the budget was Clinton?
[/quote]

On track to, eventually, in a few more years, we're getting there, is not an acceptable answer for people who want our troops home now. And Clinton balanced the budget, and our current President expanded it; my point was that neither of them have consistently balanced the budget (one guy you get a balanced budget, next one from the same party you get trillion dollar deficits).
Logged

Ready For Hoover '28!
Mechaman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13382
Jamaica


Political Matrix
E: -6.13, S: -8.26

View Profile
« Reply #18 on: May 31, 2012, 09:53:48 am »
Ignore

Hasn't it always been this way, through deliberate design?  With the possible exception of the Jacksonian era, there hasn't been a period in American history when the elites haven't controlled the political life of this country.  It's worth remembering who were present at the continental congresses, and who helped shape the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution of the United States -the elites of each of the 13 original colonies.  

I would even argue that during the Jacksonian era this was true.  Landed Southern Aristocrats and Monied Northern Businessmen whose interests were harmed by the protective tariff were always an influential part of the Democratic Party, before the Civil Rights Era.  Arguably, these two elite demographics actually got the vote out amongst the non-rich and non-powerful thanks to their monetary influence.  Machines like Tammany Hall existed for a reason after all.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 10:39:04 am by Guns Don't Kill People, I Do »Logged

Less-Progressivism, More Realism
Progressive Realist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5352
United States


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: May 31, 2012, 10:51:44 am »
Ignore

The rich and powerful own everything, by definition.
Logged

Ready 4 Reform.
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15159
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #20 on: May 31, 2012, 03:03:20 pm »
Ignore

It's mildly amusing how Cost article topics alternate between the Democrats having lost support of the voters for being too liberal and the Dems having lost support for being too in thrall of corporate America. I'm not sure what his prescription for the party's ailment is.

He also makes a major error in assuming that progressives are perfectly ok with the Dems being corporate shills.
Logged
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15634


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: May 31, 2012, 03:28:40 pm »
Ignore

Also it's amusing how Cost equates urban machines with being for the 'rich and powerful' when in fact the machines, corrupt as they were, existed to allow those who would otherwise be shut out of the system a foot into the system. Someone once pointed out that just because the US doesn't have rampant bribery of low level bureaucrats like police officers and customs officials, it doesn't mean the US isn't corrupt. It only means that the rich exclusively benefit from corruption. Low-level corruption at least allows the poor to benefit from corruption as well.
Logged

Brian Schweitzer '16
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26851
United States


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: May 31, 2012, 03:32:09 pm »
Ignore

Also it's amusing how Cost equates urban machines with being for the 'rich and powerful' when in fact the machines, corrupt as they were, existed to allow those who would otherwise be shut out of the system a foot into the system. Someone once pointed out that just because the US doesn't have rampant bribery of low level bureaucrats like police officers and customs officials, it doesn't mean the US isn't corrupt. It only means that the rich exclusively benefit from corruption. Low-level corruption at least allows the poor to benefit from corruption as well.

Ah, equal opportunity corruption. I hadn't thought of that one before.  Tongue
Logged

Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26851
United States


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: May 31, 2012, 03:35:40 pm »
Ignore

It's mildly amusing how Cost article topics alternate between the Democrats having lost support of the voters for being too liberal and the Dems having lost support for being too in thrall of corporate America. I'm not sure what his prescription for the party's ailment is.

He also makes a major error in assuming that progressives are perfectly ok with the Dems being corporate shills.

Everybody somewhat informed no matter what their ideology should be unhappy with their parties, be it Pub or Dem. Ideology in fact all too often gets in the way of clear pragmatic thinking.  Sometimes the left has the "right" solution, and sometimes the "right," is closer to the mark, and sometimes they are both wrong.  JMO.
Logged

Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35357
United States
View Profile
« Reply #24 on: May 31, 2012, 04:01:13 pm »
Ignore

It's mildly amusing how Cost article topics alternate between the Democrats having lost support of the voters for being too liberal and the Dems having lost support for being too in thrall of corporate America. I'm not sure what his prescription for the party's ailment is.

He also makes a major error in assuming that progressives are perfectly ok with the Dems being corporate shills.

first Nym90 non-administrative post in years?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines