urville

It's good for wealthy America. It does nothing for the middle or lower classes, to make more people wealthy or improve standards. in fact I believe the very point is to refine and maintain a smaller percentage at the top using funds in the poltical system to ensure more of that same outcome. I agree that those dependent on government for no good reason hurt the system, but a pro wealthy low tax agenda isnt going to solve the problem. It isnt designed to and hasnt made an effect.

That in a totally free system the cream does not rise to the top, the ruthless do. This utopian idea, largely the result of Rand, never materializes. Sure some good people may make it pretty far, but in a fiscal monarchy who makes it is decided by those on top because the control the means to do so. not because they are the best. This is achieved by all the means we are all very well aware of and turn our heads at all the time. That power corrupts in both directions. That when we should have used education we used regulation or deregulation to extremes.

The Koch brothers have created a populist vehicle to fund and drive benefits for corporations and the super wealthy. More of the same. The philosophy they espouse is, in reality, set against the worker not for the worker. It punishes the worker for not being innovative enough to create his own empire of success in a system deadset to make sure he cant and despises him for "stealing" if he tries to change his position through the use of teamwork (unions). The workers biggest enemy isnt the US government but the one taking actual advantage of the workers lack of a useful position with which to fight from, the employer. God forbid he should try to be competitive in such a market, hence the ever coming death of small business in this country.

I think in reality the differences between Obama and whoever ends up running against him look really important from an ideology standpoint but matter very little in relation to the real drivng forces behind all of this. Like the banking industry, the bubble, etc. In reality they are more similar than different, this is by design, and its maybe not accepted but certainly not unknown. Nothing serious has chnaged now nor would it have under McCain, nor will it under the next administration.

I disagree but agree. Government cannot do that, but the idea that the left thinks it should is just misconstruing a lie because it looks true for self gain. Secondly, neither can most people if even those select few anymore and as things progress especially under that "free" system. The middle class exists, quite geniously, as a way to keep most of the poepl happy enough, just believing enough, that they can make it big while simultaneously knowing that they proabaly wont. They believe enough though to not question enough to lose that chance. The lower class is kept still by those big government programs. Like it or not, change and cut all of that, thos programs keeping the morale, and you'll see a turn out in the next cycle to rival anything you could hope to even maybe dream of in 2012 for the right because the numbers are far greater, again by design. Do I think thats right? Yes and no again. There is no addict without a dealer, and just like the war on drugs, now that that war is an industry you cant just stop. Because now the addict and the dealer HAVE to exist to keep all that money going.


Money in life is like money in politics, your one guy before you have it and another once you do. Whats the quote? All power corrupts absolutely and money and power, in this society, are synonymous. It's a numbers game, if the idea was to make everyone more wealthy why they'd have done that by now. Made it very easy so everyone could do it and they would. If this was about making it, we wouldnt be having this conversation. This is about power. Look at what you said, "I have interacted with people in the top 1% who got there based on their work". How many are we talking? Of 1%? 100? 1000? .1% of the 1%? That isnt insipring, and even if it was, its not enough to counter balance.

Thats a generalized statement that is simply not always true.


In this response you basically make the argument against a totally free system that I was making as to corporations etc. I think tea party people THINK they are fighting for the same thing but are not. Your not going to get a "fair" system by less rules and an open system, you'll get more of the same. I think time has spoken on that.

The wealthy should pay more because they consume more, pollute more, use more, and create more mess.

Ditto on that to the right, and you simply wont get fair out of a free open system as its free enough to get away witht thing.