Do the rich and powerful "own" both parties?

[Torie]

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.

[Emperor SJoyce]

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.

[Frodo]

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.  

[white trash heroes]

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

the democrats

[Emperor SJoyce]

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...

[Beet]

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?

[white trash heroes]

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.

[Emperor SJoyce]

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.

[IDS Legislator Alfred F. Jones]

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.

[white trash heroes]

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

[white trash heroes]

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.

[True Federalist]

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.)

[Communists For McCain]

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.

[Joe Republic]

Of course they do, but the ones who own the Democratic Party ostensibly possess consciences.

[Emperor SJoyce]

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)?

[bgwah]

Depends how you classify unions...

[IDS Legislator Alfred F. Jones]

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?

[Emperor SJoyce]

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).

[Communists For McCain]

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.

[Progressive Realist]

The rich and powerful own everything, by definition.

[Nym90]

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.

[Beet]

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.

[Torie]

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. 

[Torie]

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.

[© Tweed the Younger]

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?