The gap between the rich and the rest becomes a problem as it widens. Currently it stands about as wide as it was in 1929.
So? that's corollary not causation. Till you prove empirically that wealth for one causes poverty for others, there is no connection except for inspiring envy in those undeserving of wealth.
If it's true the richest 0.01% of Americans (10,000 people) have a median annual income of $50,000,000 and they have $350,000,000 in assets AND that is an increase or 550% since 1978, the first question becomes how have you fared in the past 30 years?
Doesn't matter how well I fared. The fact that they may have done well does not affect me... no no... not true. If they do well I tend to do well too. Why? Because they can afford to hire me and pay me more. If they do bad, I do worse. Again Corollary, not causation.
No, I find it far more corrupt since 2000 when McCain/Feingold passed. And even more so since the creation of 527 groups. In a way, the Citizens United decision made it less corrupt as now corporations can act like unions and 527's and compete fairly for politicians.
But till we enact universal term limits and cap time in government, ban government unions and demand total transparency in ALL campaign finance... it will remain a mess. This is not because of the rich, it is because of people protecting their elitist political fiefdoms with special interest law. The worst practitioners of this? Government Unions and 527s. Notice, they were the only ones who got bailed out.
hmmmmmmmmm, Who's the real corruptive influence here?
Do you see our elected government as more democratic or less democratic than it was in 1978?
In theory. That's why you need total transparency of election funding. I'd LOVE to see how much money Gore got from Buddhist temples from the Chinese. I'd love to have access to the books of ACORN/COI, SEIU, La Raza, the NEA, Teamsters, AFL/CIO, TSA, Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae, and every lobbying firm in the nation.
Then again, I want federal bribery a crime punished by public hanging of the lobbyist and politician. (Shut up Tardtard. Nobody gives a **** about your fake graphs and insanty)
And now corporations will also be freer to spend on political campaigns.
About time. Unless you're willing to remove, unconstitutionally, all public money from elections everyone should be allowed to participate.
Again, you have corollary about why rich people getting richer is a bad thing, not causation. Rich people invest in businesses that will earn them interest. The better the idea and profit, the more they'll invest. They employ people poorer than them, making them more wealthy than what they were when unemployed. They consume, supporting hundreds if not thousands of businesses and their employee.
Where is the downside? Why wouldn't you encourage the creation of MORE rich people? Can you not see the connection between more rich people meaning more growth and less poor people? At least those willing to actually work. Those wanting a handout deserve to stay poor and less entitlement to charity.
Tax what you want less of. Subsidize what you want more of. So why do you want more poor people and less rich people?