Donald Rumsfield Shakes Hands with Sadam

Jakebrake

My point is that Democrats have plenty of money to throw around as well, thus rendering your point that President Bush, Vice President Cheney and his cabinet represent the wealthy invalid. I'm sure George Soros, Warren Buffett, Spielberg, etc, etc would not consider themselves represented by the Republican party.

davidmc

the way they "engineer" thier tax breaks gives me this notion. The only un-wealthy republicans i ever encounter tend to be idealogues who's tax break don't end up being very significant. Buffet, Speilburg, et al tend to be in the minority. Besides Buffet said he could live w/ o getting bush's last tax break. Remember that ?

__________________
I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death.
George Carlin
US comedian and actor (1937 - )

Jakebrake

Hey, if he wants to pay more in federal taxes, that's his business. Have at it. I on the other hand, work hard for my money and would like to keep more of it, no matter how insignificant of a tax cut someone thinks it may be. We don't have budget deficits because of tax cuts. We have deficits because our government spends way too much money, witness the current Republican spending binge.

A huge number of the "wealthiest People" are small business owners. Small business owners provide roughly 80% of the jobs in our economy. Who would you rather have that money, the government, or the people who will use it to create private sector jobs?

I would also disagree with your assertion that Buffett and Spielberg are in the minority when it comes to wealth amongst democrats.

davidmc

We all benefit from tax revenue. Tighter restrictions on social services have ended some of the abuses & besides only 1/3 of the budget goes to social services & a big portion of that is soc. sec. The next largest outlay is the military w/ 28%[current military] 18%[past miltary] for a total of 46% !!!(zap). Taxes do serve useful purposes. I agree you probably work hard for your $, as do i. What i was saying is proportionally democrats would seem to make up a smaller % of the uber-wealthy . Hollywood is only so big. It does'nt seem like there would b alot of democratic investment bankers for instance.

__________________
I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death.
George Carlin
US comedian and actor (1937 - )

lokstah

I'm not sure any of us has the right statistics to argue this point one way or the other, though I suspect you're mostly right on the first point, Jake. There are large numbers of hugely rich people of all sorts of political leanings. I live in the SF Bay Area, which is easily one of the country's most liberal and expensive living zones; I know a great many fabulously wealthy persons and families, fiercely liberal, every one.

Kerry, of course, represents the New England aristocracy; he's a wealthy quasi-liberal of the Kennedy tradition (same bleedin' initials). There's no question that the Democratic political machine, like the Red State one, is fueled by fatcats and corporations. It's not my $20 contribution buying those battleground state ads.

Ok, fine. Point made. The more valuable argument centers around the points you've hinted at in subsequent posts: the core philosophies behind liberal and conservative tax policies, economic policies, and social policies, and how those philosophies differ. It's based on an analysis of those points that progressives consider modern conservatives a fatcat-friendly club -- not the presence of big money in their ranks. Again, big money happens to different people. No, it's something different than that.

It's a divisive suggestion, but one that most true liberals hold to their hearts: that conservatives are, at their core, a more self-serving bunch; that they're less pluralistic in their worldview, and more likely to embrace philosophies which support the amassing of personal wealth -- not a bad concept by itself -- but more likely, perhaps, to thus turn a blind eye when personal success becomes dependent on the exploitation or subjugation of others.

Obviously, I'm speaking in broad strokes; I'm trying to present a particular perspective, remember. Donald Rumsfeld, whom this thread is ostensibly about, would probably disagree with me completely.

davidmc

was'nt (dep. def. sec.)wolfowitz ,also, over there during that time frame ?

__________________
I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death.
George Carlin
US comedian and actor (1937 - )