Quote:
Originally Posted by Lexical
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
From the picture posted by dredge, I doubt you will disagree with me that companies like Harvard Uni, M$, and Google have a completely different financial stance than that of B.O.A, Goldman Sachs, and Citigroup. Bill Gates has said that he should be paying more taxes even after he donated billions of dollars to charities. I am sure we all heard about the big financial scandal that Goldman Sachs did, but what big financial scandal has Harvard U. done? How can you not see the dichotomy between the two sides?
Now correct me if I am wrong, but the basis of your argument is that since both parties received the most money from entities with larger disposable income, they are in bed with their campaign backers and answer to them. Now, I am going to ignore the giant leap in conclusive reasoning and instead offer a counter. Could it be that those big corporations backed the parties because they like their fiscal stances? This would then lead to the whole thing just receiving money for doing a good job.
|
Harvard - Robert Rubin, Ben Bernanke and more importantly Lloyd Blankfein(aka GS CEO), see what I did there linking GS to Harvard.
And holy shit no way about backing Fiscal stance. So you mean major corporations and endowment funds that rely on an endless Keynesian money orgy of expanding debt to stay solvent are supporting candidates that want to keep the faucet turned on full blast because its all they know? The same process that is merely bending savers over, rewarding those under mountains of debt, and blowing up the largest bubble in human history (UST bubble gonna blow big someday).
I hope I'm wrong and everything works out great and like Barkingturtle (whose posts I find really funny) has said, those of us not choosing Repub or Dem and trying to effect change within the system are just nut jobs. If any of us nut jobs are right though...