Can a politician take big money and still be their own person?

I think that if people give significant money to a politician it is typically not about "buying" the politician but supporting ones you agree with.

Personally, I don't see banks as the big bad evil that some others do, so I'm not that concerned that some banks thought Hilary someone worthy of contributing to.

Do you agree with those that believe the 07-08 crash happened largely because of greed and deregulation?

I certainly do agree that deregulation (in particular about capital requirements) as well as the failure to regulate new financial instruments are the obvious failure points that contributed to the crash.

But I think greed is natural (and just needs to be regulated) and tend to see "greed" as a demonization that describes everyone from the people buying too much house to the risks the banks were willing to gamble on and that is not that useful. Greed is not going away, and I see regulation as the key issue.

Greed is just harmful ambition, I would like to merely regulate the harm and see the demonization of "greed" as counterproductive classism most of the time I hear it.

It might well be counterproductive classism some of the time the word is used today in political discussions - the whining of the have-nots who are ever with us. But I think that after a long trend of all the gains in a nation's economy going primarily to the top 1 or 2% to the point that now they hold more wealth than the other 99% (and that being as a result of totally conscious acts of the rich and their lobbyists), "greedy" is nothing more or less than the best, most accurate and succinct description.

I think 90% of the people criticizing the "greedy" would do the same in their shoes. I think it is human nature. I do not agree with the way the game's rules are set up, and yes agree that wealth discrepancies need to be mitigated but do not see this as about good people and bad people but about predictable human behavior given the rules of the game.

I guess I'm saying that if the rules of the game are unfair let's change the rules but nearly every player is going to play the game to their advantage given the rules they face.

I'm not sure what "rules of the game" are not fair. Study and work hard was the motto for success.

That would be distribution for the world.

For the US the top 20% has about 90% of the wealth.

Well that theory that most everyone would behave the same if they were rich is not testable, but I don't agree with it. I happen to think that adage about the love of money being the root of all evil has a lot of truth to it. I think money and privilege can affect character. Also admittedly not a testable theory, but we're just trading opinions here.

Thanks - doesn't affect my central thrust, but we appreciate accuracy.

Who are the top 20%?

Either way, it's more moot because the solution for both viewpoints is regulation. Nobody expects the stridency of the criticism of greed to do anything, so the regulation is what to focus on to change things.

Do you have children?

Not human ones.

Extremely still poor people. You should ask for the top 0.1%...

Are you asking from the standpoint of quintiles? The top 20% of persons in the US based on net worth.

Or from the standpoint of characteristics of the persons in that quintile?
https://www.census.gov/people/wealth/files/Wealth%20distribution%202000%20to%202011.pdf

I agree with your thrust. Just wanted to make sure we know it isn't just a small percentage.

My personal viewpoint is that we need to tax based on wealth to prevent a small group becoming the ones that own it all. We have attempted to use income tax as a proxy for wealth but the problem is we have let the wealthy reduce their income taxes so it no longer is a proxy for wealth. Those that earn money on their wealth no longer pay the same or higher tax rate than those that earn money from their labor. If we allow this to stand we could well end up with 2% owning 99% of everything.

My figures say 0.1% already own 99% of everything...maybe I need a new pair of glasses.

Are you near sighted or far sighted?
Here's a chart on wealth distribution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth

Said from a republican point of view. As you should have known if you have followed me on a2k. And if he is the nominee you better get used to the term.

Damn right I did. Any democrat is closer to my point of view than the most liberal republican. Of course that is in this election cycle. If I am around in the next cycle I may change my mind. I try to keep an open mind and vote for the one who is best for all and dont pay attention to pir in the sky promises.