13
   

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

 
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 03:33 pm
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.
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 03:37 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

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?
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 03:48 pm
@snood,
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.
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 05:15 pm
@Robert Gentel,
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.
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 05:31 pm
@snood,
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.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 05:35 pm
@Robert Gentel,
I'm not sure what "rules of the game" are not fair. Study and work hard was the motto for success.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 05:37 pm
@snood,
Quote:
top 1 or 2% to the point that now they hold more wealth than the other 99%
That would be distribution for the world.

For the US the top 20% has about 90% of the wealth.
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 05:37 pm
@Robert Gentel,
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.
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 05:38 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:
top 1 or 2% to the point that now they hold more wealth than the other 99%
That would be distribution for the world.

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

Thanks - doesn't affect my central thrust, but we appreciate accuracy.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 05:42 pm
@parados,
Who are the top 20%?
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 06:13 pm
@snood,
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.
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 06:21 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Do you have children?
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 06:28 pm
@snood,
Not human ones.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 06:49 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Extremely still poor people. You should ask for the top 0.1%...
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 06:55 pm
@cicerone imposter,
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
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 06:58 pm
@snood,
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.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 07:01 pm
@parados,
My figures say 0.1% already own 99% of everything...maybe I need a new pair of glasses.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 08:35 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Are you near sighted or far sighted?
Here's a chart on wealth distribution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 11:34 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
"Socialist-communist?"


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.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2016 11:38 pm
@maxdancona,
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.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 09/23/2021 at 10:12:01