But therein lies the con, Fuzz. Most legislation does not help the "overwhelming majority" of Americans. Funny you should use that phrase. It's straight out of the democrats' recent anti-tax cut speeches. Kinda like when all the right wingers on here started calling them "the democrat party" instead of "the democratic party" right after Bush started saying it.
If you dig deep enough, you will find corporate interests behind an overwhelming majority of legislation, whether pushed through by the "right" or the "left". The propaganda machine of the left has convinced you that they work "for the people" and "against big business and corporate interests" when nothing could be further from the truth. Just like the propaganda of the right has convinced many of our BOTL on here that the republican party is "the party of small government" when nothing could be further from the truth. The republican party is only the party of small government when it comes to letting corporations do whatever the hell they want. When it comes to issues of personal liberty and privacy, they are the party of all-powerful moral authority government.
Here's how the genius of "the left" works: They convince you that they are "for the little guy", "making the rich pay their fair share", "holding big business accountable", "creating a safety net", "helping small businesses", "for the children", "against the war", etc. etc. But behind the scenes, it is these same huge megacorporations who mold, influence, and sometimes even write the regulations that the democrats push. Let's take the old "tax cuts for the rich" mantra, for instance. Democrats wanted income taxes to return to the old level for anyone making over 250K per year, right? Do you consider 250K per year to be "wealthy"? I don't, but anyway, people who make 250K per year are lumped in with those making 250 million per year. Here's the deal: one of the main ways that the uber-mega-super wealthy stay wealthy is by keeping other people from becoming wealthy. Now let's say, for the sake of argument, that Lord Richington Diamondworthy III pays his full tax burden on his 250 million per year income (I argue that most super wealthy people do NOT pay their full tax; they find ways to weasel out of it - more on that later). So he pays 39% of 250 million. He's left with a measly 152 million. Boo f**king hoo, right? Now say a husband and wife together make 250K and pay 39%. They are left with 152K. That's a big hit. But to Lord Richington Diamondworthy III, he doesn't even feel it because he already has more money than he could ever spend. He could use $1,000 bills for toilet paper and never run out of money. So the democrats have most folks convinced that "the rich will pay their fair share", and Lord Diamondworthy is sitting back, smoking a Gurkha His Majesty's Reserve, twirling his evil moustache and laughing. The democrats help the wealthy and powerful stay wealthy and powerful by keeping other people from becoming rich. And they help huge megacorporations by enacting regulations that only megacorporations can afford to comply with. And they handed big pharma endless taxpayer-funded profits with the health care bill. It's no coincidence that Obama got more campaign contributions from big pharma than McCain did.
Ask yourself: Why would huge corporations like BP, JP Morgan Chase, Exxon Mobil, Goldman Sachs, Lockheed Martin, etc. donate millions upon millions of dollars to democrats who state outright that they will raise their taxes and put stricter regulations on them? Why is Harry Reid the biggest recipient of campaign donations from AT&T, Goldman Sachs, Time Warner, and Morgan Stanley? Why is Charles Shumer the biggest recipient of campaign donations from Lockheed Martin and Citigroup? Because with the help of "the left", they are slowly gaining monopolies on their respective industries, or in the case of Goldman Sachs and the like, they got...well...I'm sure you remember.
borndead1 wrote:
