Is it possible that rich people give more because they have more? If a median income voter gives a few hundred dollars to political candidates in a given year, it's not because they necessaryily expect a direct payback right? It's probably because they think they will benefit by certain social problems being resolved, from the solution of which they may indirectly benefit. Isn't it reasonable to assume if that same person's income was 10 or 20 times greater, they might give 10 or 20 times more (i.e. a few thousand dollars) in the hope of a similiar indirect (non-corrupt) payback? I am a very politically concerned and active citizen. If I had a few million bucks, I would surely give many times more than I presently do (& not miss it) to candidates I support in the hopes that they would succeed & address the problems I want solved. And I'm sure most of NPR's listeners would be similiarly inclined. Is it conceivable that many successful well-to-do people feel likewise & that they give not for personal gain but for love & concern for country? Or are 'they' (the rich & successful) inherently ONLY self-motivated & corrupt? George Soros...where are ya when we need ya?
Mar. 04 2008 02:41 AM
Score: 0/0
Billy Bob
from Hankford
How about Obama's terrorist money? That guy who was the bomber that was his best friend? And how about Farrakhan? Why no mention of that? Just a lot of "sending our New York reporters to Texas" stories........
Mar. 03 2008 11:48 AM
Score: 0/0
Amy
from Manhattan
I just checked the campaignmoney.com site mentioned by a caller--it was last updated on 2/9 & still shows Clinton 1st "as ordered by money raised."
Mar. 03 2008 11:43 AM
Score: 0/0
Susan
from Kingston, New York
Obama didn't come out of nowhere to run for President. He is supported by the same lobbyists and corporations that Hillary is. There is no way that there is going to be a big change in Washington as long as the lobbyists and corporate lawyers support these candidates. Obama is buying into the same economic power structure that Clinton is a part of and he is being supported by them as well. Wake up. The left continues to be extremely naive.
Mar. 03 2008 11:42 AM
Score: 0/0
Alex in Harlem
from Harlem
Lobbyists funding Hillary. It's the main reason I support Obama.
Mar. 03 2008 11:34 AM
Score: 0/0
Leave a Comment
Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more.
Learn more. Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm
your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the
right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the
Comment Guidelines before
posting.
By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's
Privacy Policy and
Terms Of Use.
Comments [5]
Is it possible that rich people give more because they have more? If a median income voter gives a few hundred dollars to political candidates in a given year, it's not because they necessaryily expect a direct payback right? It's probably because they think they will benefit by certain social problems being resolved, from the solution of which they may indirectly benefit. Isn't it reasonable to assume if that same person's income was 10 or 20 times greater, they might give 10 or 20 times more (i.e. a few thousand dollars) in the hope of a similiar indirect (non-corrupt) payback? I am a very politically concerned and active citizen. If I had a few million bucks, I would surely give many times more than I presently do (& not miss it) to candidates I support in the hopes that they would succeed & address the problems I want solved. And I'm sure most of NPR's listeners would be similiarly inclined. Is it conceivable that many successful well-to-do people feel likewise & that they give not for personal gain but for love & concern for country? Or are 'they' (the rich & successful) inherently ONLY self-motivated & corrupt? George Soros...where are ya when we need ya?
How about Obama's terrorist money? That guy who was the bomber that was his best friend? And how about Farrakhan? Why no mention of that? Just a lot of "sending our New York reporters to Texas" stories........
I just checked the campaignmoney.com site mentioned by a caller--it was last updated on 2/9 & still shows Clinton 1st "as ordered by money raised."
Obama didn't come out of nowhere to run for President. He is supported by the same lobbyists and corporations that Hillary is. There is no way that there is going to be a big change in Washington as long as the lobbyists and corporate lawyers support these candidates. Obama is buying into the same economic power structure that Clinton is a part of and he is being supported by them as well. Wake up. The left continues to be extremely naive.
Lobbyists funding Hillary. It's the main reason I support Obama.
Leave a Comment
Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.