Actually it depends on who is running the government. Democrats favor regulation, which support the little guy from being screwed over from corporations. Republicans on the other hand resist regulation and want the poor to fend for themselves, also leaving corporations do whatever they want.
long established commercial entities would be my number 1 answer.... big business... doesn't matter how much they put in, they always get what they want out of government
I wouldn't say " corporations" as if all are equal... they aren't... the majority of corporations get run the **** over by the bigger fish and the politicians they bought.
I don't know the difference between the "rich" and the "wealthy"... but neither group get anywhere near what they put in.
the middle class are ****ed all the way around.....you give a lil, and you get a lil... well, unless you consider being paid lip service by power hungry politicians to be a "benefit".. if you do, this group benefits the most.
the poor get a metric ****-ton for little or no contribution.
From the existence of government in general, or from our government specifically? Eh, either way, it's everyone. It gives all our money to the wealthiest and to corporations, but very few of us would be better off without democratic government. But almost all of us would be better without private money determining our elections and buying the allegiance of our elected leaders.
Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.
Honestly, it is impossible to say with the choices available. Everyone benefits from government in some way. And just having a government established, especially one like ours, means that weaker people benefit more than stronger people, less independent people benefit more than more independent people, but this would not have anything to do with their socioeconomic class. But those stronger people can still find some benefits that exceed the weaker people in some ways, if they actually care to do so. Highly resourceful people (those who can use their skills and/or talents to get what they need to survive in pretty much any situation) would most likely fair better than many other less resourceful people without government.
Without the government, there would likely be small little fiefdoms set up in accordance with who could take power. This could mean tyrants, of either individuals or groups with the strength and/or means to take over, or communities cooperating to defend and control themselves. It would likely be something pretty similar to the situation described in "The Postman". The communities would work more on a trade/barter system than a currency system in all likelihood and there would be very few laws. But there would also be less absolute ownership of property because property ownership would be dependent on what you could actually physically defend, not on the government backing up your claim.
But, without government, there are many downsides, including making it much more likely for a more organized group of people, who do have at least a quasigovernment set up to come in and simply take what they want.
"A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt
Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.
I think its clear. The very wealth, rich, and corporations. What happens when there is a national economic crisis? Its clear, we bail out the rich and the powerful because they are "too big to fail". Who gets a lot of subsidies? Rich corporations. Who takes advantage of our lenient tax code? The rich and big corporations. Who benefits from wars? Corporations. Who has the most influence on our government? The rich and corporations.
☮★★☮ Just a democratic-socialist in the heartland of America.CHECK OUT MY TUMBLR(BLOG)HERE "Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression, and violence, and enjoy it to the full."
I must say dems and repubs liberal and conservatives are in agreement here in these polls 100 percent in agreement!!!!!