Obama's policies serve the long-term interests of the 1%.

[dawg]

I don't say this as a criticism, just something that I consider to be a fact.

Needless to say, the rest of us will be better off under Democratic policies as well. But even the richest among us will, in the long-term, be harmed by the destructive policies promoted by the other party.

Conservatives are dealing in economic fantasies these days, and when fantasies eventually meet reality, the results are seldom pretty.

It is remarkable to me how few of the 1% are well-informed enough to realize that the destruction of the regulatory framework that enabled them to become so wealthy in the first place is not a good thing. I don't understand how they can think the impoverishment of their customer-base is going to somehow be beneficial to their businesses. And I really can't understand how they expect Herbert Hoover economic policies to somehow have a different result this time around.

In order to benefit from Republican economics, you need to have:

- at least $3.5 million in net worth (maybe double that if you are married)
- at least $800,000 a year in income
- no more than five or ten years left to live
- no children or grandchildren (that you care about, anyway)

The billionaires pouring millions into electing Republicans are not only greedy, they are incredibly short-sighted.

Warren Buffett became one of the richest men in the world by thinking long-term, making good investments, and being patient enough to wait for those investments to pay off. No wonder he doesn't support the policies of the extreme right. It isn't that he's too nice, it's just that he's too smart.

[Vidar]

1. Yes, they do.

[elleng]

2. If not interested in inciting flame war, you COULD say 'long term benefits of all.'

[dawg]

5. But that's not the point I'm trying to make.

I'm trying to point out that the rich 1%'ers who suppport the Republicans are cutting their nose off to spite their face. The problem isn't greed so much as it is short-term thinking.

[elleng]

9. I got it, but the headline 'annoyed' me.

Your point is correct, of course.

[dawg]

11. Yep, I was being a little snarky.

But we shouldn't think it's a bad thing to make life better for those at the top. As long as it doesn't take away from someone else, I wish them all the best.

Personally, I think many of them are "stupid" and only got their money through their sociopathic "people skills". (Skills which, sadly, I seem to lack. )

[immoderate]

3. Well, he tosses the occasional bone.

As long as it doesn't burden the rulers.

That means we can have sex.

--imm

[Robb]

4. Protip: the long-term interests of the 1% are always served.

There are few policies enacted by governments anywhere that impact their long-term interests.

The rest of us, however, have a real interest in seeing more Democrats and fewer Republicans governing us, thanks.

[dawg]

7. They have gotten delusional enough to do harm even to themselves.

Their tendency towards Hooverism, if left unchecked, will take down our economy and their investments along with it. They believe things that are demonstrably false, and if the goverment is in their hands, they will act on those falsehoods with disastrous consequences.

[pinboy3niner]

6. OBAMA would serve the interests of the 99% FAR, FAR better than his opponent

Just a fact.

[dawg]

10. Agreed, but even the rich are better off ...

under Obama, at least in the long-term.

The Democrats, whether we like it or not, are a middle-of-the-road pro-capitalist party that favors only moderate levels of government regulation and intervention. The Republicans have turned into moonbats that talk about going back to the gold standard and eliminating the income tax.

If I were rich and greedy, and thought I still had plenty of years left, I would still favor the Democrats. Even if self-interest was all I cared about.

[pinboy3niner]

12. If you were rich and greedy you'd support RMoney

His tax proposals only accelerate the transfer of wealth from the lower classes to the wealthy.

[dawg]

14. But that would only help me this year.

Either he could make up with the tax cuts through spending cuts, or else he couldn't. If he managed to cut spending enough to offset his cuts, it would end the recovery, consumer demand would dry up, corporate income would go down, and my stock would go in the crapper. I would lose far more wealth than I would ever have paid in taxes.

And if he just lets the deficit go up forever and ever, the inflation monster will eventually come back and the economic value of my millions will start to inflate away.

Either way, in the long-term I'm screwed.

Sensible, stable economic policies that promote a strong middle-class are in my self-interest - even if I'm a rich greedy bastard.

Not to mention the fact that I need to breathe air, eat food, drink clean water, and all that stuff too.

[hifiguy]

8. No one who does not will ever be allowed to become POTUS.

The last president who openly took on the MIC and TPTB was JFK and we all know how that turned out. The alternative, however, is unthinkable especially with respect to the SCOTUS.

[dawg]

13. Except for maybe now.

Romney, by doing exacly what the 1% wants him to do, might just throw us all into destructive cycle of austerity and depression.

At least in the old days, the 1% may have been evil but at least it kind of knew what it was doing. The guys calling the shots on the other side these days are not intelligent or well-informed.

The Iraq was is a good example. Sure, they lied us into it. But they really did believe it would be over in a few months. They really belived it.

They also believe the economy would just take off right now if only they could push through enough spending cuts. And if they take down our economy, they'll go down right along with the rest of us.

[TheKentuckian]

15. 100% correct

The entire political debate is actually between the short term profits even if it cooks the golden goose and those that want to squeeze the eggs out over an extended time and that is it.

Of course we do better under the long gamers just on stability alone but their is nothing on their agenda intended to benefit us. We are given a hair more breathing room to keep us off the barricades as not to disrupt commerce but they still want low wages, austerity, as little taxes as possible, compliant and eager labor, and to pollute at will they just want to do so in a more orderly fashion and see more than a quarter or two down the line.

[rhett o rick]

16. I expect the Neighborhood Watch to be here very soon. Dont let them catch

you wearing a hoody.

[dawg]

17. I certainly look suspicious.

But really, I just think that sane economic policies benefit everyone. Short-term thinking is killing this country.