Artful Dodger:

And how much did George W. Bush get?

Or are Republicans immune to Wall Street Money?

Übergeek 바둑이: Bush isn't the point. The point is that the darling of the left took money from the big corporations just like any other politician. Obama is NO DIFFERENT than the rest. Even though he campaigned on being a cut above the rest. He's cut from the same cloth.

Artful Dodger:

> Obama is NO DIFFERENT than the rest. Even though he campaigned on being a cut above the rest. He's cut from the same cloth.

The question is: Is there anyone who is not like the rest?

Is there any Democrat or Republican who has not taken money from corporations or wealthy businessmen?

I think at this point the only political party not takiing money from corporations is probably the Communist Party USA!

Well, many Americans want to believe that somehow Democrats and Republicans are really different, but they do have two things in common: greed and hypocrysy.

Übergeek 바둑이: Well, without big money and support from corporations or individuals nowadays in the US there is no effective election campaign.

I think maybe the US needs to take on a UK system regarding TV advertising. In the UK such advertising is limited but free. Even during a general election parties get just a few slots per week.

Thank God for that imho ;)

Übergeek 바둑이: I think that you are right. It cuts across party lines. I do believe you see more of it on the liberal side but it's not exclusively theirs. However, it's the climate in Washington that's really to blame. I don't think all politicians enter Washington that way. But they learn to play the game and learn what it takes to get things done. Along the way, they get taken advantage of and eventually they look and sound like everyone else in DC. I suppose there has to be some level of the sort of thing we're discussing (in order to get things done in DC) but often the lines of decency not only get blurred, they are blantenly crossed. A thousand excuses follow.

Artful Dodger:

> However, it's the climate in Washington that's really to blame. I don't think all politicians enter Washington that way. But they learn to play the game and learn what it takes to get things done. Along the way, they get taken advantage of and eventually they look and sound like everyone else in DC.

This is a serious problem is most western democracies, not just the USA. The rich and powerful use their money to influence policy makers. In most countries the winners of elections are those who advertise and campaign aggressively. It costs money to mount aggressive campaigns. Advertising is aimed at building up your own image while discrediting your opponents. Character assasination and underhanded tactices go hand in hand.

The rich and powerful know this, so they strategically donate money to candidates that will further carefully selected political and economic interests. Money becomes a tool to influence law makers.

Candiadtes have learned that a mixture of big advertising dollars and populism sells well at election time. Barrack Obama is a great example, as was Ronald Regan.

The situation is such that the candidates generally elected are those who spend the most on election campaigns. Campaign expenditures have risen election after election, to the point that now candidates are spending over a billion dollars during a presidential campaign.

Small political parties with new ideas are shut out completely. The playing field is not level and that means that the two dominant political parties completely choke small parties. Then both parties often represent competing political and economic interests and that leads to a political stalemate. The two parties are virtually unable to function without constantly trumping each other at every turn.

We have heard of Wshington being "dysfunctional". I think the main culprit is special interests and campaign donors that expect the money they donated to buy power and influence. Candidates that take no money have virtually no chance of being elected, and therefore cannot come in and bring change and new ideas.

The public craves change and renewal. Since the dominant parties are unable to deliver, people look for whoever can offer something new. Barrack Obama sold himself as a man who could bring change. I think that at least to some extent he was sincere in his desire, but failed on account of the much bigger and much more powerful machinery of money and hypocrysy.

The Tea Party is offering more transparency, a return to some traditional values of the past, and a more honest, open government. The big question is whether they can deliver. Unfortunately their front runners are people who grew up politically in the same system. Only time can tell whether they can break away from the "old boys club" mentaility and the pervasive presence of special interests and corporate meddling.

Übergeek 바둑이: If Jesus was in charge, we wouldn't be in this mess!

I don't want to vilify the rich generally. I know a few millionaires. One, uses his money to help the poor build churches in South America along with roads and wells.

Artful Dodger: don't you have that bit wrong???

what you mean is...If a woman was in charge we wouldn't be in this mess....

Please get YOUR facts straight.

Bernice: Jesus first, a woman second. And don't forget it's a woman's fault were in this mess in the first place (she ate the apple) ;)

Artful Dodger: OI!!!!....cut that out....she was in the kitchen (where men like to keep us, barefoot and....)and just had a taste....but because men are wooses (sp) she got the blame...

OK OK ....Jesus first I guess, but then wasn't Jesus a woman?

Bernice: Jesus broke the tradition of excluding women in the affairs of men. He was a bit of a radical when it comes to tradition.

Artful Dodger:

> If Jesus was in charge, we wouldn't be in this mess!

I suppose Jesus would do certain things differently. He would probably support free, universal health care for the poor since his ministry dealt so much with the suffering of the poor. He would probably support feeding the poor too, and to do so he might have had to use state funds. Jesus would be on the side of the poor all the way. He would care for the working man (his father was a carpenter), and he would pardon criminals who repented of their transgressions. He would probably get rid of all the weapons, including the nuclear arsenal. He would leave all theatres of war operations and simply refuse to go to war. It is difficult to say. It all depends on how one interprets the New Testament.

> I don't want to vilify the rich generally. I know a few millionaires. One, uses his money to help the poor build churches in South America along with roads and wells.

I don't generalize abou the rich. Some of them do great things with their money. Other are just plain greedy. The rich live in a state of contradiction. They want to make a lot of money, and to do that you have to be aggressive. At the same time they want to be good, or at least be seen as good.

The best example is John D. Rockefeller. He founded the Standard Oil Company (today's Exxon). He turned that company into the biggest monopoly in the world. To do that he engaged in industrial espionage, price wars, heavy-handed marketing tactics, courtroom evasions and shennanigans, bribery, supporting dictators abroad, using thugs to beat up workers who went on strike, influencing and corrupting elected representatives, etc. At the same time he was engaged in huge charity projects and gave away over 1 billion dollars to charity (in today's money that would be about 50 billion).

So there is a deep contradiction between the brutality of his business tactics, and the generosity of his charitable donations. He made thousands of people poor and dispossesed, and helped thousands of poor people at the same time.

Some of the businessmen that influence Washington today probably have the same contradictions. They will use their money to influence representatives, they will use brutal business tactics both at home and abroad, and then they will donate a lot of money to charity. Sometimes those donations are given out of altruistic principles, sometimes the donations become tax deductions. In the meantime representatives are easily swayed by money and a system that undermines the democratic process.

Artful Dodger: that is an awful lot of money....could have helped a lot of people pay off their mortgage:(

Bernice: It's amazing how much money is spent on getting someone elected to office. What a waste.