"But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope."
Circular firing squad: ACTIVATE!The inaction on the tax cuts measure shows just how much high-dollar donors own each Party. And how forward thinking Karl Rove is to orchestrate a "tax cut" that expires in an election year.I maintain that tax rate has less to do with voter discontent than government waste of tax dollars collected, but I tend to think in terms of history. But returning Clinton era tax rates to the super-rich while keeping middle class (however broadly defined) taxation at current levels should be a slam dunk vote in a Democratically controlled Congress. Let the GOP spend their time filibustering, if they want it.But, no. Then all the "big money" (that is already going to the GOP) would .... still go to the GOP.
"But returning Clinton era tax rates to the super-rich while keeping middle class (however broadly defined) taxation at current levels should be a slam dunk vote in a Democratically controlled Congress."It should be yet a bill hasn't even made it out of committee. Mitch might hold his ground in the Senate but the Democrats would get some Republican defectors willing to cut a deal. Hell, even Boehner over in the House has publicly stated he'd cut a deal if it came down to it. There would be no fillibuster."But, no. Then all the "big money" (that is already going to the GOP) would .... still go to the GOP."Don't fool yourself here. Big money stays big money because they know how to play both sides of the fence.
I thought Butler was the best punter in the country. Turns out it's not him. It's Harry Reid.LOL!Does anybody believe that Reid isn't trying to do an end run (to keep up football analogies) and trying to not extend the tax cuts? This'll garner more votes for sure.Then all the "big money" (that is already going to the GOP) would .... still go to the GOP.Another liberal lie. Look at this list at OpenSecrets.org and tell me who's getting all the big money.
From your reactions, it would appear you missed the very second line of my commnet: The inaction on the tax cuts measure shows just how much high-dollar donors own each Party.But with a few notable exceptions, the vast majority of wealthy folks I know vote and contribute GOP. You aren't going to see them on the Open Secrets list.Next up, looking at the Open Secrets list, you have to click on "All Cycles" rather than "2010" cycles, and there is a more even split. Like Dante said: big money follows access. It ain't a surprise that incumbents (who usually win elections) make money through donations. Even then, there are top donors that go heavily Democratic, but these are mostly unions - organizations designed to affect politics with a self-identifying membership made up of mainly middle class individuals banding together.To see a comparable "organization" for the other side, you'd have to do a database query search along the lines of "Southern caucasian Protestants who earn over $1M per year," and breakdown their contributions. Also, if you look at the "fences," there are quite a few where well over 50% goes to GOP candidates. I think if the spread the chart uses was calibrated for over 55%, you'd see an awful lot more red. Not much (as pointed out), but more.Bottom line: Again, big money runs both parties. But bigger money has more incentive to vote GOP because of top marginal tax rates.
Back to the punter reference: Reid has now also punted on the Hallowed Burlington Coat Factory Manhattan Zoning Crisis and the repeal of DADT, all so he can lose his election by a closer margin (or something) and take the whole Senate down with him.
To be fair, the Manhattan Cordoba was never Reid's to punt. He threw in his 2 cents without needing to.
True. Does that make it more like a mascot fight, then?
So it's OK if big money comes from the liberal ordained sources? Now, we start parsing and rationalizing. Even though many of those union members make more than the average American and are paid by the others' taxes. Face the truth, the Republicans are no more in someone's pocket than the Dems.
Again: The inaction on the tax cuts measure shows just how much high-dollar donors own each Party.I'm not disagreeing that both parites cater to intrests. I'm saying the chart you linked to doesn't tell the whole story. As for most of those union workers making more than the median wage (around $48,000/yr), I don't know how valid that is. Most folks I know are in either a Teacher's Union or in SEIU, and they don't make near that. As for those union workers being in taxpayer funded industries, only 3-4 in the top 25 listed items might fall into that category, and only a few others on the whole list (I'm not counting folks who may be working on government contracts or in subsidized industries). The majority are in non-government, specialized trades.
The Teacher's Unions and SEIU are jokes. Then NEA, et al protect incompetent teachers, fight against school choice (which would improve education because schools would have to improve to survive), blame parents for their failures and overall hinder educational advancement. For numerous examples visit Darren's, a teacher in California, blog.The SEIU is even worse. On any given weekday in Cincinnati, I can walk for 30 minutes around downtown and see 2-5 SEIU protests, usually about janitors. The protesters are obviously not unemployed workers but hired bums who are largely unemployable.For unions its more about the union leaders and officials getting more money than anything.These big corporations you hate provide good incomes for millions of people. They are investments which many people use as a source of retirement income. For example, Proctor & Gamble, the largest consumer goods company in the world, P&G provides us with shampoo, soap, tissues, toilet paper, etc, etc. A fantastic place to work. One guy I met retired from P&G a millionaire after about 20 years of working on a loading dock and buying stock options at every opportunity.Liberalism indulges in blind hatred of corporations (big money) while bathing with George Soros, John Kerry, the Kennedys, Nancy Peolosi and many others. Why are 8 of the 10 wealthiest members of Congress Democrats? Because they get rich off the fools who think the Dems are the party of the little man.Look at the plight of the average black male compared to 1950 or 1960. There may be less discrimination but more are raised in single parent families than not, 1/3 spend time in prison, they are more likely to be murdered than any other group, and so on. All this after 50 years of liberal programs.Liberalism is a philosophy of exercising power over others in order to force them to behave according to the tenants of liberal philosophy. It empowers no one except the ruling classes and robs people of freedom and opportunity.
That is not "liberalism" except on the airwaves of right-wing radio. You're talking about interest groups, and - as I said at first, everyone has them. Let us not confuse liberalism with Democrats any more than we should confuse conservatism with Republicans.Unions and corporations can both be incredible forces for economic and cultural progress, but when run badly, or when using outsided influence to steer decisions their way against the interests of the people, they become problems. Just like any organizations.Try to keep in mind that my complaints are directed at the Democrats who, despite their national marketing strategy of being vaugely more for the middle-class than the upper-class, are unable to come to a consensus on the Bush Tax Plan because they fear many of their wealthy donors will flee to GOP candidates in the final lengths of an election they stand to lose because the middle class abandons them anyway.And where a whole lot of their Big Money donors have fled to the GOP based on the vauge marketing strategy.
Post a Comment