Who do they represent? I would say that they ONLY represent the richest of the richest. What say you?
Stemming largely from the lack of restraint and destruction of bicameralism that came with the direct election of Senators (two bodies of representatives drawn from the same pool), Congress largely does whatever it likes these days. This includes rampant corporatism and collusion between business and government. Business gains the wealth that comes with their competitors being regulated or subsidized out of existence, and government gains power. Lots of it. Consequently, you have a new system of indirect election of Senators. Rather than Senators being appointed by the people of the states through their legislatures, they're elected by the people through big business and corporate advertising dollars. This is common to both parties, as most libertarian leaning leftists will tell you. [hr][/hr] What you need is a return to bicameralism and checks on the Federal government. Do this and the rest will fall into place. Some are calling for an amendment to get money out of politics, along the following lines, But this is problematic. Declaring corporations not to be people could go either way, but I imagine it'd be used to bad ends in most circumstances. Rather than removing the massive state subsidy and moral hazard that is limited liability, and making corporations compete as the sum of their individuals - it would likely be used to remove the rights of those individuals. For example, the right of the owners of businesses to use their property in anyway they desire, including to run advertisements for their favored politician. The problem isn't that wealthy individuals are exerting too much freedom of speech, the problem is that you've removed the safeguards preventing such people from gaining undue influence, and have failed to enact additional ones. The other problem is precisely the opposite. If it doesn't radically limit the freedom of speech/press, as ยง2 suggests, then it will be completely ineffective. Without adequate checks on Federal representation corporations and wealthy individuals will continue to donate/advertise for politicians, and those politicians will continue to be influenced by these favors. [hr][/hr] The idea of getting money out of politics is great, but they never offer any way of doing it without radically infringing on the freedoms of speech and press.
True for Democrats too. How else would Bay Area, once anti war, Liberal Democrats such as Pelosi, Feinstein and Boxer support the bombing of Syria? What Convictions. It's the money. aka Plutocracy. It runs the Media making fluff look like issues between Anderson and Bill to make sure we vote for the same economic policy that tilts the economic playing field to the rich so they get richer. It has worked these last 12 years. RepubloCrats. Brought to you by the rich. It isn't just the GOP anymore. Moi Remember Obama before '08 Did he sound like a RepubloCrat? Now, does he function like a RepubloCrat? Are you feeling the recovery? Obama's friends are. They got most of the income over the last few years.
Thats a stupidly simplistic answer. Republicans represent the distorted views of movement conservatism in America. They are Americas enemy, but its not so much about rich people. The rich count plenty of liberlas in their number.
Honestly, I believe is simplistic answers. In science too. Simplicity has elegance and little avenue for deviousness. My dyslexia and ADHD also seems to take to the simplistic, logical interpretation as opposed to the less simplistic, logical interpretation. That said I have one question for creation. When was the last time we had a Presidential election where we also voted for different economic policies? Now upon answering that you might connect the dots and figure out who the "One Bi Partisan Economic Policy" RepubloCratic, ObamNey choices benefit. Creation: respecting my ADHD and dyslexia, type slowly and explain where I don't have it right. Bernanke Dollars are NOT the same as TARP or RomneyNomics. That sure seems like one economic policy to me under three different names with some "fluff" differences. They are systems where our taxes support the rich who commit the crimes on us with impunity or 3 days profit fines for bringing down the national economy, oh the hurt, the hurt. Notice how neither party will address the monopoly and national security threat of any business in America that is "too big to fail". We don't need New Laws. Apply the ones we have. Please, creation help me connect the dots if I haven't done the same for you. Moi
Fair enough, I will. America runs along on a consensus that as long as enough people have enough, then the rich can accumulate as much as they want. As yet there is not enough support for a return to much higher taxation days when America was really truly successful (the 50s and 60s etc). Democrats seek to edge towards that, but of course are accused of being totalitarian socialists (like the Republicans were previously?). For more, look into the history of movement conservatism.
Haven't you noticed there is now, not enough to go around. Such as owning your own home and living without economic fear if you manage your life responsibly. The movement away from the Eisenhower Tax code to the wealthy persons dream we have today was bi partisan starting with JFK who termed himself an Anti New Dealer. The definition you give to the Democrats just hasn't been true for some fifty years. Not if you examine their accomplishments of more Liberal Social Programs paid for by the Middle Middle. Moi
OP has issues with neoliberalism ? see it this way : the sooner system is screwed the sooner we will have to change it. Sit back and enjoy.
The GOP is a very big tent, just like the Democrats, but it's fair to ask of polling data if there are significant demographic differences among the bases of Republicans and Democrats. The Pew Research Center supplies us with such data from 2012. See here. Republican voters are somewhat more likely than Democratic voters to be (remembering that there are still many Republican voters from other groups): male, white, married, 30 or older, conservative, family income $30K or higher, own their home, affiliated with a religion, more likely to live in the South than the Northeast, not a college graduate. Democratic voters are somewhat more likely than Republican voters to be: female, non-white, equally likely to be married or unmarried, 30 or older with a bit less than Republicans from over 65, moderate, all income levels equally likely, own their home but much less likely than Republicans, unaffiliated with a religion, more likely to live in the Northeast than the South, a college graduate. It should be remembered that these are only summary figures which combine results from the many different demographic groups making up each party. Individuals often differ sharply from these summaries. P.S. Look at these results, and it's clear that both choices in the poll at the head of this thread are wrong.
Nonsense, there is indeed enough to go around. And havent you forgot about LBJs great society? Or the ACA? By the way, given your views are you left or right in the political spectrum?
LBJ "hah" A fine example of a Liberal who seeks to benefit the poor at the costs of the middle middle. Never at his expense. California had a great indigent medical care system that LBJ destroyed with his more expensive MediCaid system associated with MediCare. See if you can find anyone who can speak to the California County Hospital system, pre-LBJ. These were university affiliated. Not the "death houses" of county hospital lore. LBJ has the distinction of milking the middle middle in a double double fashion. Social programs taxation and Vietnam for blood, bone, lives and money. I sincerely hope LBJ is suffering the torments of Hell right now and for all eternity. He obviously loved LBJ more then anything. Moi
They DON'T represent the richest of the rich? Who would you trust to 'guard' you immense wealth, if you had it?
dude, you either have no idea how to make a good poll, or are just a dishonest person. Neither party goes only one way or the other. People, regardless of income levels, do have views on social policy and defense, and even when it comes to fiscal/economic issues, views don't fall along income levels. I know two people, a waitress and a lawyer. The waitress doesn't even earn $15,000/yr, whereas the lawyer earns well over $100,000. The waitress is extremely conservative, and isn't just opposed to handouts, she refuses to accept any from people or the government, yet she somehow donates thousands each year to charity and the church, and she goes on missions trips to evangelize and help people in third world countries build better homes. The lawyer doesn't give anything to charity, except for what he gives to ACLU and donates to DNC campaigns, and doesn't volunteer his time. He believes that the government should tax more of his money to provide more programs for the poor, but he doesn't give any of his money freely towards that end. And these people aren't actual anomalies, they're just contradictions to your too common narrow worldview.
Why don't you make one then? I got the answer I thoght was the case. The GOP caters to the supremely rich, exclusively, 100%. The certainly don't represent the poor person (but I already knew that). Point being, why would/should any poor person vote for the party of the rich? People seem to agree but, since you are the lone dissenter, perhaps ou can tell me where the GOP represents the poor? Maybe we're all wrong.
Oh, so, it's either "the richest of the rich", or, "average low income person"? Why did you totally leave out the majority of people that the GOP represents? Poor hyperlibs... with them everything is either snow-white or obsidian-black, with no shades of gray. Makes for a very simple mentality....
The GOP represents the supremely wealthy. I'm sorry you're uncomfortable with people believing that reality.
Got any rational reason to think that the GOP is the party of only the "supremely wealthy"? Got a link, or a rationale? Or is this just your sophomoric fantasy? I've been a Republican since I got out of college and pulled my head out of my ass, too. It's amazing how you can see the world so clearly once a person becomes educated and starts supporting himself completely, and that is exactly what the majority of self-supporting, taxpaying, middle-class Republicans do! And it is something that many thumbsucking hyperlibs never do, so they stay at home, living off of Mommy and Daddy, and Comrade Obama. The tragedy? That worthless parasites like this are allowed to vote at all.... Hell, if people on the national welfare-suck were prohibited from voting, a jive-ass nothingness like Obama would never even make it out of the garbage piles of South Chicago -- let alone make it to the White House! But you Democrats know what's best for the nation... right?!
The GOP is the party that caters EXCLUSIVELY to the very rich. So much anger....sheesh...you need to see your doc. Get some meds. Maybe just guzzle some fine champagne. If the GOP ISN'T the party of the supremely wealthy, tell me what they've done recently to dispel that myth. Any one will do. Please, something from relatively modern history too...you should't have to go back to 1860 something. Let's see..the last Republican Presidential offering was outsourcer extraordinaire, Mitt PinkSlip Romney....outsourcing specialist and super wealthy fat cat, representing the richest of the rich...is that right? Seriously, they ARE the party of the rich....EXCLUSIVELY...read the poll. Everybody knows it. It was just fun pointing it out.
Like all good little socialists, you are fixed on the concept that the creation of wealth is a bad thing, and, parenthetically, we see (certainly as no surprise) that you couldn't buttress your "viewpoint" with any facts, links, or anything else. Thus, like all good little socialists, you offer envy at the success of others as an excuse for the ethos of a permanent welfare-class subculture which has chosen to sit on its dead ass, mired in its own inability to do anything constructive, crying that anyone who isn't also a bust-out failure must be guilty of being "supremely wealthy", and therefore someone to be hated and condemned. Where does the "supreme wealth" come from that runs your precious Welfare State? From Comrade Obama and other pick-pocket Socialists? Running the country into fathomless depths of debt is your idea of how to run an economy...?! You can vote for socialistic welfare candidates and their "bread-and-circuses" programs if you want to, and even if you're successful, all you'll get out of it is a miserable subsistence existence, for which you'll be expected to be eternally grateful with your vote for them, and it. Want to make a difference? Get Comrade Obama to put his shoulder into changing the U. S. Tax Code! THAT'S where the rich give you, me, and everybody else who isn't also rich a royal screwing! They enjoy tax write-offs, shelters, loopholes, exemptions, and exceptions that ensure taxpayers will always be screwed out of nearly half their earnings, while they pay little or NOTHING! Hint: Comrade Obama won't ever be doing that. It would harm the "Limousine Liberal" East Coast old-money! They want to keep your limited attention span focused on hating people who work for success, and so far, that has been an easy thing to do, obviously....
So, in summary, your view is that the rich need relief from taxes. The supremely wealthy, need more wealth, and everything will be fine. Just take care of the supremely wealthy, and the trickle will trickler on the rest of us if we just play along. I think I got it.
The temptation now is to say horrible things about your suspected level of intelligence, or the lack of it. I will decline, and instead ask you what part of the elimination of loopholes, shelters, write-offs, exclusions, and exemptions from the U. S. Tax Code you think would be beneficial to the "supremely wealthy", and therefore detrimental to working, middle-class taxpayers...? Still, it's amazing that anyone who possesses enough intelligence to read and write could so completely misunderstand what I said. We can disagree about the perceived functions of Obama's Welfare State, and the "worthlessness/worthwhile-ness" coefficient of those who suck on it, in juxtaposition to those who are forced to provide it. But what should be perfectly clear, even to the most entrenched socialist is the blatantly unfair construction of the U. S. Tax Code. If we who work, and those who don't can't even agree on the fact that the "supremely wealthy" get riches and keep riches by paying little or nothing in taxes, then both of us are doomed to be their servants forever! Stll, it probably matters little to a socialistic parasite class how much anybody pays in taxes because people who get their living by sucking off the Welfare State don't pay much of anything in taxes anyway. Why would they care, as long as their "beggar bowl" is kept full...?
