Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Srexley who wrote (588290)	7/6/2004 5:55:35 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

"By the time the polls open, wealthy citizens will have determined which candidates their poorer compatriots may choose between in the presidential face-off and in hundreds of contests in Congress and in local legislatures across the land. Then, high-income voters will disproportionately influence the outcome of those races." This guy seems like a real whiner. Do you (or the author) think it would be best if we let the poorest and least capble run the country. All people (over 18) in the U.S. have a vote. If they want to run the elections, then they should work for it. As the ones that have achieved in America have done. Why does that bother you guys? It has been shown that as more people participate in the governing of this country, the results are better for everyone. So to answer your question, yes, I think its better that you and I and others on these threads participate in the selection process for election candidates and not just the top ten percent of this country. "Federal statistics show that in 2000, the wealthiest 2.8 million U.S. citizens -- representing one percent of the national population -- took home more after-tax income than did the 110 million people who comprised the poorest 40 percent. The richest five percent controlled more than 59 percent of the country's wealth, defined as income plus assets, while the bottom 40 percent of the U.S. population had to make do with a collective 0.3 percent, says New York University economist Edward Wolff. Nearly 31 percent of black households and some 13 percent of white households had zero or negative net worth, meaning that their liabilities exceeded their assets, adds Wolff." Not really sure what you are suggesting by hilighting in red, but my view is that this is a great country where anybody can make it. Yes, that's the story......the reality is much different from the story. Decade after decade, the rich in this country have gotten richer with a higher percentage of the country's assets in their control. The only reason we have a big middle class is because the pie got bigger over those decades......so there was more to go around. Had it not, there would be no middle class in this country. How did the 2.8 million in the top 1% do it iyo? They didn't do it in one year........its been like this for decades. Are you suggesting we just give the lower folks some money? The article is suggesting that our election process is becoming less and less democratic; that only the rich can rule. My opinion is that teaching them to be positive and that anything is possible is much better than the offers divisive techniques that imply these big bad wealthy people have all the power. Who are you talking about? The have nots in the article are us. If you make less than 500 k per year, you are not one of the big guys. I say if you want it, the be a big bad wealthy person yourself. John Edwards did it. Lots of people have. 2.8 MILLION of them did it. There you go......one or two people make it and we think everyone can. The odds are very much against the guy who was not born rich. When you live in a competitive environment, some will do better than others. Just a fact of life. And America is a competitive place. One that insures the rich stay rich. Subject