Do the rich and powerful "own" both parties?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 08:27:02 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Do the rich and powerful "own" both parties?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Do the rich and powerful "own" both parties?  (Read 3619 times)
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 30, 2012, 04:30:55 PM »
« edited: May 30, 2012, 05:38:53 PM by 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.
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 30, 2012, 05:21:43 PM »

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
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,511
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 30, 2012, 05:44:06 PM »
« Edited: May 30, 2012, 05:46:34 PM by 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.  
Logged
courts
Ghost_white
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,466
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 30, 2012, 06:10:52 PM »

They're really the same thing. Tell me this: which party opposes the Bush tax cuts?
the democrats
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 30, 2012, 06:29:01 PM »

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
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 30, 2012, 06:51:05 PM »

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
courts
Ghost_white
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,466
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 30, 2012, 06:57:21 PM »

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
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 30, 2012, 07:09:10 PM »
« Edited: May 30, 2012, 07:16:01 PM by SoEA SJoyceFla »

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.
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 30, 2012, 07:25:39 PM »

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
courts
Ghost_white
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,466
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 30, 2012, 07:28:45 PM »

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
courts
Ghost_white
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,466
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 30, 2012, 07:31:57 PM »

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
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 30, 2012, 07:33:16 PM »


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
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 30, 2012, 07:33:27 PM »

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
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,044
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 30, 2012, 07:49:47 PM »

Of course they do, but the ones who own the Democratic Party ostensibly possess consciences.
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: May 30, 2012, 08:00:13 PM »


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
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,833
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: May 30, 2012, 11:08:05 PM »

Depends how you classify unions...
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: May 31, 2012, 05:28:48 AM »

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
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: May 31, 2012, 06:12:58 AM »

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
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: May 31, 2012, 09:53:48 AM »
« Edited: May 31, 2012, 10:39:04 AM by Guns Don't Kill People, I Do »

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.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: May 31, 2012, 10:51:44 AM »

The rich and powerful own everything, by definition.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: May 31, 2012, 03:03:20 PM »

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
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: May 31, 2012, 03:28:40 PM »

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
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: May 31, 2012, 03:32:09 PM »

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
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: May 31, 2012, 03:35:40 PM »

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
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: May 31, 2012, 04:01:13 PM »

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  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.068 seconds with 13 queries.