Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: A light came on for me this morning, while watching ... [View all]freshwest
(53,661 posts)32. No, you nailed it here:
i.e., do you favor policies that increase/protects your personal wealth, at the cost of the poor and working classes; or, do you favor policies that benefit the poor and working classes, despite their hurting/not benefiting you personally.
It's the real divide.
FDR and the Kennedys that some claim to idolize, didn't seek to power to get richer. They saw it as a duty or that their survival and the world they wanted to live in, like HRC, was and is dependent on all people gaining. The quality of life for all being key to their happiness, too.
Those who support Rush, or did Romney, the Tea Party and the Libertarians, are all about the other side of what power is about. To get richer and stand above those they regard as their inferiors. It's considered necessary to their survival, to keep others below them. Their happiness is rooted in maintaining a superior social position by encouraging inequality.
The question people must decide is what they enjoy. Many of us cannot enjoy our prosperity knowing that others are perishing. That's the first group that I described. The second group feels that they will not get to enjoy their prosperity with all those other people nibbling at the corners of what they think belongs to them.
I need more coffee, too. And to fix my keyboard which is acting up very badly now.
It's the real divide.
FDR and the Kennedys that some claim to idolize, didn't seek to power to get richer. They saw it as a duty or that their survival and the world they wanted to live in, like HRC, was and is dependent on all people gaining. The quality of life for all being key to their happiness, too.
Those who support Rush, or did Romney, the Tea Party and the Libertarians, are all about the other side of what power is about. To get richer and stand above those they regard as their inferiors. It's considered necessary to their survival, to keep others below them. Their happiness is rooted in maintaining a superior social position by encouraging inequality.
The question people must decide is what they enjoy. Many of us cannot enjoy our prosperity knowing that others are perishing. That's the first group that I described. The second group feels that they will not get to enjoy their prosperity with all those other people nibbling at the corners of what they think belongs to them.
I need more coffee, too. And to fix my keyboard which is acting up very badly now.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
67 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
It is just that might be considered Far left - I despise the Third Way and Corporatism - and it
djean111
Jul 2014
#5
I think that's a good characterization of the problem, and it denotes an acceptance
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
Jul 2014
#3
The GOP is appalled that we have any sort of boat at all, and is trying to hand out a Titanic-sized
djean111
Jul 2014
#6
does she pay more taxes than rmoney?does she think her taxes should go UP!
pansypoo53219
Jul 2014
#17
Missed it? The point is, those who oppose Clinton do not oppose her because of her wealth.
Enthusiast
Jul 2014
#37
GOP 1% want to pay LOWER tax rate than 99% vs Dem 1% want to pay HIGHER rate than 99%....
ErikJ
Jul 2014
#30
Well said. That's exactly the issue. When someone's wealth depends on someone's
valerief
Jul 2014
#31
If you value job creation, you should be against free trade deals like the TPP.
Enthusiast
Jul 2014
#48
It's crystal clear, actually, and I posted elsewhere about how Clinton is making Mitt's mistake
Warpy
Jul 2014
#55
I have strong concerns about Hillary - but how much money she has is not one of them
Douglas Carpenter
Jul 2014
#63