A member (Individual) made some statements in another thread that were off topic there but which I though might make an interesting debate on there own. When as who the reply was – Is wealth mainly left wing in viewpoint and do they push a left wing agenda?
If the left is in charge in America, then where are all the social programs? The public health care? The free university? Etc. etc. If there is a leftist agenda being pushed forward from behind the scenes, then that's a good thing... I don't see it, but it's a good thing.
If you look at the American government over the past decade it sure seems to be the oil companies and war profiteer corporations calling the shots for the most part. It's also common knowledge how republican oriented and connected these corporations are with the government. As far an overall division of wealth, things get quite cloudy. Clearly the means of accumulated wealth plays a role in the ideologies from one empire to the next. I'm sure the billionaires of Texas oil industries have quite different views from the billionaires of California's entertainment industry. Also the billionaires of New York's international trade have varied and different ideologies. Not all billionaires have the same agendas although I'm sure they all have a few tendencies in common with each other. I did work a few years in a tech support field for a big business product and I talked to a lot of very wealthy American businessmen every day and I have to say the majority had very passionate republican tendencies and spoke as if liberal socialism were the dirtiest words in their vocabulary. The quotes of the OP sound quite sympathetic to the 'poor' republican side and if that is the case it is quite delusional. Even if there was more liberal wealth, there is obviously plenty of republican wealth. Dallas Texas is the 6th wealthiest city in the entire world! Division of wealth simply does not translate equally to voting numbers and governmental powers. Especially in a false democracy where only the fanaticals and out of touch senior citizens bother to go out and vote. Edit: damn spellchecker !
That's been my experience as well. The sentiment I've seen is, "I've got mine, now keep your hooks off of it!" The statement, "most of the wealthiest persons tend to be Liberals" is unquantifiable, since at a relatively low income level "persons" tend to become corporations. And then, corporations start owning multiple other corporations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4_0Pt3HAR8"]YouTube - Bachman Turner Overdrive - LOOKIN' OUT FOR NO.1 I guess this holds true for most people .
Look at all of the wealthy Blue State residents of New York, California and New Jersey who had the Alternative Minimum Tax revoked in the last years of the Bush administration. The Alternative Minimum Tax would cap the write-off on Federal Taxes for local property tax payments. Rich people with Mcmansions and huge property tax bills now can write off the entire amount of local real estate taxes. This creates overinvestment in large homes. Democrats felt that the scritunity on local spending would be reduced by gift wrapping the entire payment as write-off.
Who are these oil companies and "war profiteers"? I have a feeling whom ever they are they did not start the last few wars we have been experiencing, do you? Are you suggesting the Bush admin' and "coallition of the willing" started those wars because they wanted whom ever you are talking about to make a profit? Please explain how that worked if you can. No. I imagine "the left" just like patting themselves on the back in public more often. http://www.globalrichlist.com/ You're in the TOP 9.62% You are the 577,767,357 richest person in the world!
There seems to be an implication here that the people mentioned are somehow directly gaining from the “spending on social programs” and I don’t think that could be backed up. However some companies and corporations do receive direct financial benefit like the Walton family, the richest families in America, who own 39% of Wal-Mart. The low wages of many Wal-Mart workers meant they qualify for and need social aid to keep going, a report calculated that in California alone Wal-Mart workers claimed 86 million dollars in state aid. "In effect, Wal-Mart is shifting part of its labor costs onto the public," the researchers wrote. "Wal-Mart's long-term impact on compensation in the retail industry has the potential to place a significant strain on the state's already heavily burdened social safety net." http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/press/latimes_aug04_2.shtml And what political influence the Walton family have seems to be directed toward what would be seen as right wing in nature, such as opposition to the estate taxes. Jim Hopkins “Wal-Mart family lobbies for tax cuts.” USA Today, April 5, 2005. Strangely enough Warren Buffet actually supports the idea of estate taxes saying "A progressive and meaningful estate tax is needed to curb the movement of a democracy toward plutocracy." *
Wealth both corporate and individual has always had influence, they have interests like most groups or people but they have the money to place in promoting those interests. I don’t think it can be stopped (although I think it should be regulated and monitored, and where necessary curbed). Many contributions are opportunistic, such as backing all the candidates in an election, but some are more directed. And they are more often than not directed against left wing ideas (and promoting right wing ones) because many of them see left wing ideas as opposing their interests. Here are some of my views on that I’ve posted here before in the Conspiracy or lobbying thread – The wealthy elites of the US (and most of the world) fearing the rise of communist ideology and the an increased interest in left wing political ideas around the globe began to support anti-left wing groups and policies, which by definition were conservative or even further to the right. It wasn’t so much a conspiracy as a group’s conscious reaction to a perceived threat to it ideological and material position. They used whatever means possible to ‘educate’ people into believing the ‘truth’ that left wing views are communist and communism was ‘evil’ and wrong. During this campaign there were many anti-communist claims of a covert communist plan to take over America and the world, but since more often than not there was no real evidence for this they resorted to innuendo, supposition and down right lies and many right wing groups like the John Birch Society used those to weave their conspiracy theories. "By 1963, corporations were spending an estimated $25 million per year on anticommunist literature... Some corporations circulated print and audio-visual materials produced by the John Birch Society; other corporations produced their own in-house literature...By the early 1960s, the Nation magazine reported that there was a minimum of 6,600 corporate-financed anticommunist broadcasts, carried by more than 1,300 radio and television stations at a total annual budget of about $20 million...Leading sponsors included Texas oil billionaire H.L. Hunt and Howard J. Pew of Sun Oil. The corporate sector's massive anticommunist propaganda campaigns created a favorable climate for the mobilization of activist groups like the John Birch Society." Sara Diamond, Roads to Dominion: Right-Wing Movements and Political Power in the United States, http://www.amazon.com/Roads-Dominion-Right-Wing-Movements-Political/dp/0898628644/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216203697&sr=8-1"]http://www.amazon.com/Roads-Dominion...6203697&sr=8-1 It is something that carries on today, with the huge number of wealth sponsored right wing activities from publishing through radio to the many think tanks and academic grants; it’s also prevalent on the internet through direct sponsorship of sites and by viral sellers in internet forums. ** This manipulation of the ‘facts’ was most successful in the US where many came to believe (as a matter of ‘common sense) that any left wing ideas were ‘communist’ and that communism was an ‘evil’ whose purpose was the destruction of the ‘American way of life’. As I’ve pointed out before people join or support such movements for differing reasons. Some people did this because they actually thought left wing ideas wrong, others did it because they feared that left wing ideas if implemented might diminish their wealth and influence, and some were just hangers on. So once the population were ‘educated’ and ‘informed’ about ‘communism’ (any left wing or progressive thought) they became accepting even complicit in the harassment and suppression of such ideas at home and abroad.
In the US (and other places) there is a symbiotic relationship within the right wing movement between wealth and the promotion of right wing ideas. Wealth founded and sponsored think tanks and academics are basically paid to produce reports that favour the right wing agenda, these are then used by lobby groups and the right orientated media as ‘proof’ of the superiority of right wing ideas. However many of these reports or analysis are deeply subjective and the evidence they are based on open to alternative, but they become accepted often without question by many. Three of the most aggressive and influential think tanks of the last few years are the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institute. Charles G. Koch and David Koch are the billionaire co-owners of Koch Industries, America's second-largest private company, they run the Koch Family Foundation, one of the largest single sources of funding for right wing organisations in the United States. The list of the right wing think tanks and lobby groups they support is too long to quote here but a to mention just three - the Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute Richard Mellon Scaife the billionaire funds right wing causes through the Scaife Foundations which he controls also funds the Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute and funded the Project for a new American Century amongst many others. Joseph Coors founded the right wing think tanks the Free Congress Foundation, the Council for National Policy (along with the Heritage Foundation). The Cool family are big sponsors of right wing causes. There is also the Bradley and Olin Foundations which also support conservative institutions among them the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute, as well as 9while it lasted) the Project for a New American Century. (sourcewatch) Many right wing politicians find employment from such organisations for example many of the people high up in the Bush admin had associations with the Project for a New American Century. And Paul Wolfowitz who was basically push out of being Bush’s Deputy Secretary of Defence for mishandling the Iraqi occupation and after having to resign from the Presidency of the world bank under a cloud was welcomed with open arms by the American Enterprise Institute.
Sorry, I thought it was common knowledge that Bush and Cheney were involved in oil companies and Iraq reconstruction contractors... I guess not. I guess they must have LOST money on the war like the rest of America... taking their share of the debt, I bet they are, right, yeah...
This was mine: I am the 824,785,999 richest person in the world, according to this thing. There are 824 million people out there that are richer than I am and I still feel broke, lol.
It's common knowledge the criticism is: Bush/Cheney/Oil/Reconstruction/Profit. I hear those words all the time...however I rarely here the details and the specific connections. I just wanted your take on it. If you are suggesting they both benefited, then you need to be specific not vague. Great! There are oil feilds in Iraq and Bush/Cheyney has/had oil connections in some form (not sure while in government)...that's baby logic. Imho, the truth is a myriad of companies benefited from the wars including Iraqi companies. Yes, in some convoluted way both Bush and Cheyney may have benefited indirectly/directlty.. I highly doubt they both sat down and thought: "lets start a war for our own benefit." It seems a childish a naive thing to think. I could be wrong.
Former US republican vice president Dick Cheney is among the Top 0.001 richest or ~ 100000 richest person in the world. Mainly from his involvement as CEO of Halliburton, the second largest international oil field / military contractor / construction company in the world.
I posted the link earlier to put all of this in context. I am within the top 10% of earners. But, actually I get payed lower than the national average. I'm not rich or poor. Saying Mr Cheney is in the top 0.001 means nothing, really. He'd only have to be a millionaire to be in the 0.001% club.
I can't stomach the idea of communism or even socialism. I worked hard to get what I have and I am not inclined to share it with random people. I am happy to give to charities that I decide to support but I simply can not trust the government to spend more of my money than they already do. You want health care? Get a job with it. Want to go to college? Do like I did and work your ass off (I know, crazy talk right). Can't afford your rent...Drop your car note and your credit cards. Then...OMG I can't believe I am saying this...Get a cheaper place. I understand that not everyone can succeed, but jesus, here lately we are just making a system that encourages failure. Why bother to try when you will never have the fear of failing? And the thought that 2 guys sitting around in a semi round room started a war for the hell of it...that is dumb. I am not one to think that our invasion of Iraq was pure, but Saddam was a monster right up there with Hitler. Or was WW2 for profit too?
Amen. The "government" i.e. congress, is almost exclusively lawyers. Hence the saying, "lawyers are the larval form of politicians". Lawyers are trained from the getgo to have an adversarial attitude. So the only appropriate attitude towards lawyers/politicians is an adversarial attitude. Hasn't been an option for most since the mid 20th century. Want to find a job with healthcare provided? Move out of the U.S.! According to the 2001-2 census, the mean (midway) cost to spend a year in the avg. public college in the U.S. was about $11-12k per year per student. It's undoubtedly a lot more now. Sorry, "work your ass off" isn't a viable solution these days. And that's just for public colleges. What's a public college degree worth these days? Check at Wal-Mart or Burger King. Amen again. Want to avoid getting buried in debt? Do not buy a car you can't pay cash for. Saddam was bush league. "Bush" league may have taken on a new connotation in the last several years, but it still means small potatoes. Don't let's digress here to how huge a mistake the war on Iraq is.
if all the poor people rebelled and killed all the rich people. All the poor people would be rich and the cycle would continue again and again.. then too.. If all the college kids from around the world just decided not to go to school no more.. The world would be fucked.. You cant coordinated that any more than you can coordinated a full scale, world wide prison riot.... The Earth is a prison , isnt that what that one boozo, keeps making you all believe?...
