Is Democracy for the wealthy?

Question

Is it meant for the wealthy or balanced?

Answer 1

The liberal democracy envisioned by Locke that influenced the founding fathers was one not designed to protect the rich, but to protect the ability to acquire wealth and prevent the government from obstructing wealth creation.

It is balanced in the sense that there is suppose to be few legal barriers to creating wealth and choosing how to use it. This does not mean some people do not have advantages like more knowledge, but anyone can reach whatever point they want if they use their talents.

Answer 2

Definitely!
The result of the last twenty years of Reagonomics and W.Bush Investment Tax Cuts is a huge transfer of wealth to the wealthiest 1%. This 1% contributes the vast majority of the "campaign" money for the politicians of our "representative" democracy. We have returned to the Gilded Age. The social safety net ( that is more encompassing and is taken for granted in Western Europe) that was formed in the U.S. by FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society has been all but destroyed by Republican Pro-Corporate/pro-wealth policies like deregulation, privatization, "free trade" (Democrats like Clinton guilty too), tax cuts on Corporations and investments and a huge transfer of discretionary spending to Wars, Occupations and the Military ("Defense"-$638 Billion proposed for 2008-more than the rest of the world combined) Budget.

Answer 3

It was meant to be balanced, but because of the people who are running the government it has become more benificial for the wealthy. Wealthy people control congress though lobbying so that legislation that could potential help the poor may not get passed if it hurts the wealthy business men. Oil and insurance companies are prime examples of this.

Answer 4

We are not a Democracy!

Well. the wealthy has all the money, while 50% of American Taxpayers earn $25,000 or less! The average is $44,000, well below what the Congress considers middle income!

Congress thinks that middle income is those making between $100,000 and $200,000 a year! That is 9.7 million families out of 132 Million families who filed tax returms!

They are so out of touch! And if that is the case, 120 million out of 132 million taxpayers with families are poor!

I don't think we should have a flat tax! You know who would pay most of the taxes? Right, the 120 million who are already considered to be poor! Besides, they do anyway!

Answer 5

"Is it meant for the wealthy or balanced?"

Let's take a look at prominent Democrats - Kennedy, Pelosi, Soros, most of Hollywood, etc. These people aren't only wealthy, their filthy-rich. They are also, however, clearly unbalanced, so I'd have to say its for the wealthy, not the balanced.

Answer 6

under the democratic process, each persons vote would have the same weight. when you modify a democracy you shift the effective weight of each person and provide and advantage to a group or groups. therein you are no longer a democracy but a modification of it heading another direction. the rich would like and oligarchy which hinges power with cash

Answer 7

The same question was debated at the founding of our country. Jackson and Jefferson spent a long time debating it. Read their well thought-out discussions for greater clarity.

Answer 8

There are wealthy and poor regardless of what form of government exists.

Answer 9

no but capitalism is. If a democracy is based around wealth then it defeats its basic principles of equality

Answer 10

It is for those that participate. If you don't work for a democracy you will lose it.