• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Super Rich Tell Republicans What To Think

ElChupacabra said:
That revolving door is a serious concern when it comes to determining what the priorities of elected officials actually are. Sure, we know they're in office to represent their constituents, but it's hard to eliminate the career advancement motive when the financial rewards of moving between the government and private sector are pretty lucrative.
Click to expand...
The Anti-Corruption Act would place a time limit on lucrative post-public-service rewards. We just need to get enough people to support it locally so it can become well-known and become a viable national issue one day.

We need to hear every candidate be questioned by reporters or in debates: "Do you support the Anti Corruption Act?"

What candidate wants to take a pro-corruption position?

Put 'em on the spot!
 
tshade said:
That was my point--------voters are at fault. Period.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't end there. The legalized corruption is the problem.

Simply saying the voters are 100% to blame is like saying the poor are 100% to blame for their own condition (not true!)
 
Blue Dog said:
From the link:

Krugman continues, “And then there’s the revolving door: it’s depressingly normal for former officials from both parties to take jobs with big banks, corporations and consulting firms. And the prospect of such employment can’t help but influence policy while they’re still in office.”


It is a little more complicated.
Click to expand...

Yep, so-called "moderate" democrats, just like repubs, line up for cushy corporate gigs once they're out of office.
 
ElChupacabra said:
That revolving door is a serious concern when it comes to determining what the priorities of elected officials actually are. Sure, we know they're in office to represent their constituents, but it's hard to eliminate the career advancement motive when the financial rewards of moving between the government and private sector are pretty lucrative.
Click to expand...

One of the biggest, most obvious conflicts of interest, as is the ability to buy/sell stocks. Congressmen & women get a hell of a lot richer in Washington. And considering that they have more familiarity with all the rules they debate and write, they'd be suckers for not leaving richer than when they arrived.
 
Peacenik said:
Agree with nearly all of that. Yes, I do place more emphasis on the Republican Party, and for good reason. Big money supports Republicans over Democrats 4:1. Yes, they did support more Dems in 2020 but that was the exception because Trump was so unpopular. Big money went against Trump in 2020 for the same reason big money went for him in 2016. They get what they want in the long run. They got their big tax cut and they knew there would not be another any time soon. Dems were poised to win in 2020, so they wanted to be able to call the shots there, too. And boy did that ever work out for them. Big money, big coal and fossil fuels supported Manchin and Sinema and they delivered, killing the Build Back Better Act.

Big money doesn't want the middle to thrive and prosper. Labor costs are lower when people and job applicants are more desperate.
Click to expand...
I agree, but I have to set the record straight for 2016 and 2018.
Big money went to Clinton in 2016, here you go. Hillary raised and spent almost twice the amount of Trump. The below is presidential only.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/

Also in 2018

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/10/2018-midterm-record-breaking-5-2-billion/
 
multivita-man said:
Yep, so-called "moderate" democrats, just like repubs, line up for cushy corporate gigs once they're out of office.
Click to expand...

I wonder what Joe Manchin has lined up for when he gets voted out.
 
multivita-man said:
One of the biggest, most obvious conflicts of interest, as is the ability to buy/sell stocks. Congressmen & women get a hell of a lot richer in Washington. And considering that they have more familiarity with all the rules they debate and write, they'd be suckers for not leaving richer than when they arrived.
Click to expand...
Or they would be actual dedicated public servants if they kept their fingers out of that pie.
 
Peacenik said:
Or they would be actual dedicated public servants if they kept their fingers out of that pie.
Click to expand...

I actually do think a lot of these people - maybe a majority - run for congress to make their district or their state a better place. But once they realize the kinds of power and access to capital they now have, I think it corrupts even the most well-intentioned among them. I think the idea over time is to keep getting re-elected until they're so old it doesn't matter anymore, but in the case of someone like Joe Manchin - or even Joe Biden for that matter - you can enlist your kids to help run the family business.
 
multivita-man said:
I actually do think a lot of these people - maybe a majority - run for congress to make their district or their state a better place. But once they realize the kinds of power and access to capital they now have, I think it corrupts even the most well-intentioned among them. I think the idea over time is to keep getting re-elected until they're so old it doesn't matter anymore, but in the case of someone like Joe Manchin - or even Joe Biden for that matter - you can enlist your kids to help run the family business.
Click to expand...
I enjoyed reading Obama's book 'The Audacity of Hope.' He was candid. As soon as you get elected they do come at you. And if you don't take the money it goes to your opponent. If you want to have the power to do good things, you have to get elected. It's a terrible system for getting the people what is needed. It's designed to reward the rich. We need to fix that; and we can. One of the biggest myths is that nothing can be done about it.
 
NatMorton said:
Paul Krugman is a shill for the DNC. If you know the Democrats' view on the economy, you know Paul's.
Click to expand...

I've rarely seen Krugman at Democratic conventions though I admit I wasn't looking that hard for him. He's just a liberal academic wonk, and at his most extreme, he's center-left. To the left of Larry Summers, but to the right of Thomas Piketty, Robert Reich, and Joseph Stiglitz. He probably doesn't really want - certainly doesn't expect - a billionaire wealth tax, though I admit I've not read as much of 'Kroog' in recent years. I suspect he'd settle for just closing tax loopholes, which is hardly a radical idea.
 
Peacenik said:
And Republicans eat it right up.

And they also tell them how to vote - and they obediently vote that way without question.



That's how the super-rich get Republicans to vote for things the super-rich want - and often against their own better interest.



They are literally telling the right what to think, and the right just goes right along with it. It's much easier than independent thought. And lazier. But that's how you get average income people to vote for tax breaks for the super-rich, and hate liberals so much that no coordination with them is possible to break the stranglehold the super-rich have on conservative thinking. And on USA politics.

1. Secretive nonprofits and think tanks often funnel money into political activities while obfuscating the donor records.​



2. Billionaire donors get tax benefits for philanthropy, but they still control how the money is spent.​





3. Donors have begun funding think tanks and scientists to create doubt about the science behind climate change.​



4. Donors are injecting money into education to create a pipeline of new political talent educated by conservative ideology.​



5. Donors have become kingmakers, and politicians must pay obeisance to them.​





How Dark Money, Political Think Tanks, and Billionaire Kingmakers Influence Our Political System​

Click to expand...
Funny thing is LW donors usually out spend the right by millions. But Krugman? Meh.
 
Perotista said:
I think you’re wrong. Both major parties owe their hearts and souls to corporations, wall street firms, lobbyist, special interests, super, mega, huge individual money donors. Although the OP is hitting the Republicans hard on this, in 2016,2018 and 2020 most of the super, mega, huge individual money went to the Democrats. Did you know 14 billion dollars was spent on the 2020 elections, that doesn’t count the 2 Georgia senate runoffs in January 2021 where over a billion plus was spent.

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/10/cost-of-2020-election-14billion-update/

No, we voters are but pawns, a necessary evil in our political game. Pieces to be moved around the chessboard. These moneyed folks want us to think we have a choice, we choose, we decide, we don’t. With both major parties in the hip pockets of the moneyed elites, it really doesn’t matter who wins. Now why would these super rich individual money donors give their tens of millions of dollars to both political parties? They’re smart businessmen, they’re reward is much more than the cost of the investment they make in our politics. If these smart businessmen didn’t get a very good return for their investments, well donations, they wouldn’t invest.

Let’s face it, we have the best government money can buy.
Click to expand...
the super rich who want to control others, tend to support the democrats because the democrat vision of government is one of more control
 
Peacenik said:
Agree with nearly all of that. Yes, I do place more emphasis on the Republican Party, and for good reason. Big money supports Republicans over Democrats 4:1. Yes, they did support more Dems in 2020 but that was the exception because Trump was so unpopular. Big money went against Trump in 2020 for the same reason big money went for him in 2016. They get what they want in the long run. They got their big tax cut and they knew there would not be another any time soon. Dems were poised to win in 2020, so they wanted to be able to call the shots there, too. And boy did that ever work out for them. Big money, big coal and fossil fuels supported Manchin and Sinema and they delivered, killing the Build Back Better Act.

Big money doesn't want the middle to thrive and prosper. Labor costs are lower when people and job applicants are more desperate.
Click to expand...
Democrats don't want people to be independent of government handouts
 
tshade said:
not the same , IMO
Click to expand...
It is a system that is designed by very powerful people to favor them; and disfavor everybody else.
 
Peacenik said:
It is a system that is designed by very powerful people to favor them; and disfavor everybody else.
Click to expand...
that has never been the case=well not as long as everyone can vote. the progressive income tax is based on that fact
 
TurtleDude said:
Democrats don't want people to be independent of government handouts
Click to expand...

That's actually factually wrong.
Democrats want as many people as possible to have good jobs so they can help pay for the handouts and benefits for the people who need them.
They want companies to thrive but at the same time, they also want those companies to pay a fair amount of tax on the profits they make.
 
Peter said:
That's actually factually wrong.
Democrats want as many people as possible to have good jobs so they can help pay for the handouts and benefits for the people who need them.
They want companies to thrive but at the same time, they also want those companies to pay a fair amount of tax on the profits they make.
Click to expand...
the last thing democrats want, is ending the existence of a large class of people dependent on government handouts and who are easily pandered to with promises of such handouts. If everyone believed he or she didn't need much in the way of a nanny state, it would cease to exist. Many lefties see the primary purpose of corporations as being cash cows that the government can milk, rather than created to make money for the owners.
 
TurtleDude said:
the last thing democrats want, is ending the existence of a large class of people dependent on government handouts and who are easily pandered to with promises of such handouts. If everyone believed he or she didn't need much in the way of a nanny state, it would cease to exist. Many lefties see the primary purpose of corporations as being cash cows that the government can milk, rather than created to make money for the owners.
Click to expand...

Or people just might not be as cynical as you and think helping those less fortunate than themselves is a good idea.
 
Peter said:
Or people just might not be as cynical as you and think helping those less fortunate than themselves is a good idea.
Click to expand...
I don't believe that anymore when it comes to Democrat politicians. Do some democrats believe that-sure-=just as plenty on the right do too. but the current democrat politician is hateful and all about power. The two things that I find most pathetic are wealthy democrats who are rich because of their position in government-whining about those who became rich in the private sector and holier than thou bible thumpers who are banging a mistress on the side or getting head in public lavatories.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom