Skip to main content

View Diary: "Rich people vote their self-interest in every single election. Why don’t poor people?" (316 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  orbs not orbs, and ten point LEFT (17+ / 0-)

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 06:01:13 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I was assuming you meant (15+ / 0-)

      ten points LEFT not right! It was the only way it made sense!

      Please note that lamps in the Magic Lamp Emporium are on a genie time-share program so there may be a slight delay in wish fulfillment. (◕‿◕)

      by Mopshell on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 06:09:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  i gotta be more careful (13+ / 0-)

        that was my conceptual dyslexia but also my keyboard is getting old and the new mavericks OS for mac is checking all my spelling and making guesses - i know i can  turn that off but it also has benefoots.....

        This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

        by certainot on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 06:15:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  All rich people don't vote their interests (4+ / 0-)

        For many years nearly all the Wall St types were Dems. Even Jamie Dimon states clearly in public that he is a Democrat. It was only when some Democrats started talking about taxing carried interest as ordinary income that the Wall St types started to fund Republicans in a significant manner. Even still my guess is that it is about half and half. One of the largest donors, and bundlers, for President Obama was Steve Pagliuca, the Managing Partner of Bain Capital (Mitt Romney's old job).

        "let's talk about that" uid 92953

        by VClib on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 02:47:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wall St donations to Democrats may have been (3+ / 0-)

          to discourage adverse taxation and regulation rather than ideology.

          I wonder if Republicans in office would be as anti-teacher union as the are if 40% of their campaign contributions went to Republicans.

          Sen Schumer is a powerhouse in Senate Democrats because of his huge funding from Wall Street.  I have yet to see him act against the interests of Wall Street.  

          The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

          by nextstep on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 05:39:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Rich entertainers/creative types are mostly Dems (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          isabelle hayes, Dirtandiron

          They are voting against their financial self interest
          but maybe creative brains are wired to recognize a larger self interest', maybe in a larger sense of "self".

          I've read so many studies in the differences between rich and others in psychological testing and even brain functioning because it fascinates me. I've wondered why rich entertainers/writers etc aren't like the others. I think it has to do with creativity.
          It isn't just maybe they grew up not rich. The differences in attitudes and behaviors come very quickly...
          but this isn't the place to get into the testing.

          It is puzzling though because even selfish self interest should tell a rich person if everyone is doing better, if society is better, it is better for them.

          I am not at all religious but the bible has some good lines. Love of money is the root of really bad stuff.

          •  No they aren't. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Vetwife, Dirtandiron

            Anyone with stocks or stock funds should vote democrat. Would you rather have the returns of the Obama and Clinton years  or the Bush years?  It is only the super rich who enjoy the perks of the tax code who benefit from voting republican.

          •  Maybe the creative types set out to create things (0+ / 0-)

            rather than become rich? Maybe that's the difference?

            Where are all the jobs, Boehner?

            by Dirtandiron on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 09:28:52 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  There is a Huge difference of "Being" between some (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Aileen Cheetham, kanawah

              one who is Creative, or not.  
              "Creativity & Gifts" come from a different place than "Skills."

              Creative sorts, tend to reach deep into their FEELINGS & are mastering abilities to Connect to more immense and spatial places & concepts.

              "Skills," as in someone adept at playing the stock market, or the corporate type is a more mundane & therefore myopic focus of how the game of Life is played.

              Different stakes.

              When the stakes are self-serving, the republican mentality emerges.  Or the unevolved person just never questioned the Consensus, such as religious constructs...

              Creative types, abundantly those of us marked as 'Liberals" &/ 'Progressives,' tend to have vaster vision & clarity.

              I strive to be the burr in every repug's saddle.

              by AriesAmiga on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 12:36:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  the entertianiers and creative types (0+ / 0-)

            vote democratic because they know the teabags want to regulate what they "produce".  They vote for creative freedom.

        •  Wall Street voted democratic (0+ / 0-)

          when they were "civilized".  Now they are "they wolves of Wall Street" they vote for the fascist wing of the teabag republican party.  They used to be concerned about their clients.  Now they are only interested in enriching themselves.

          We need a strong democratic administration that will put a choke collar on them.

        •  Wall St. not voting it's interests (0+ / 0-)

          According to Thomas Frank in "The Wrecking Crew", most of corporate America (including Wall St) began to be convinced to vote and support their own interests during the time Reagan was in office.  Lobbyists started persuading corporate CEO's that by hiring "conservative" firms, corporations would start to get the results they had been wanting.  "Successful" lobbying convinced even formerly Democratic heads of companies to move to the right.

          It was also during this time that the Republican Party started putting together youth groups, from which to hire staff for the DC offices ~ experience be dammed!  After all, isn't government a bumbling, ineffective organization?

          In addition, the great purge of agency talent began.  A form of loyalty testing was given to all employees in all agencies, and those not deemed sufficiently conservative were replaced by proven conservative supporters.  It didn't matter how well an employee had done the job, or how long that person had worked under both Republican and Democratic Presidents, if he/she was not perceived to be conservative enough, out he went.  Then the right began appointing loyal contributors to head the agencies, with absolutely no consideration given to experience, or lack there of.  Note, for example, Michael Brown, a horse commissioner, was appointed to head FEMA before Katrina.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site