Post Reply
Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
Switch to Forum Live View Why do Most Billionaires Vote Democrat??
2 years ago  ::  Apr 12, 2012 - 7:17PM #11
catboxer
Posts: 14,012

I don't know where you're getting your figures from. For example


What was so astounding ... David Koch .. one of the much maligned Koch Brothers, only gave $8900 ... whereas there are multiple "Stars" giving in excess of 30K.


I'm presuming we're talking about the same David Koch, whom the table I cited identified as giving a little over two-and-a-quarter million to Republican candidates (none to Democrats) and "special interests" such as the Free and Strong America PAC, Inc. This does not include any of the millions this individual has spent on think tanks, agit-prop mills, conferences and symposia, right-wing publications, etc.


What are you reading from, anyway?


And by the way, I'm not planning to go through that list and count noses, nor debate with you whether that's the numeral five or just a crooked Q.

Adepto vestri stercore simul.ttr
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 12, 2012 - 7:36PM #12
aarroottoonn
Posts: 3,128

Apr 12, 2012 -- 10:35AM, Bodean wrote:

I consistently see certain people refer to the GOP as the Party of the Rich, with an insinuation that GOP legislation is designed to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.  YET ... many of the richests people in the US actually support Democrats.

OK ... I don't have the voting record of all 403 Billionaires in America, but a fair number of the higher profile Billionaires support Democrats.  For example ...

Bill and Melinda Gates $53 billion, Supported Obama, Democrats
Warren Buffett $47 billion, Supported Obama, Democrat
Eli Broad $5.9 billion, Supported Obama, Democrats journals.democraticunderground.com/madfl...
John Doerr, $1.7 billion, Supported Obama, Democrat venturebeat.com/2009/02/06/obama-appoint...
Gerry Lenfest, Supported Obama, Sestak, Democrat www.campaignmoney.com/political/contribu...
John Morgridge, $1.6 billion. Supported Obama, Democrat www.newsmeat.com/ceo_political_donations...
Paul Allen $13.5 billion, Supported Obama, Democrat www.campaignmoney.com/political/contribu...
Laura and John Arnold, $4 billion, Supported Obama, Democrat www.campaignmoney.com/political/contribu...
Michael Bloomberg, $18 billion. Supported Obama, Democrat
Michele Chan, $5 billion. Supported Obama, Democrat
Barry Diller, $1.2 billion. Supported Obama, Democrat – nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/10/barry_dill...

... and of course .. George Soros ... who is the most visible Democrat Billionaire.

In looking at this I came across an interesting perspective that makes sense, but of course, I have no way of knowing it's true ... but again .. it makes sense, especially based on the psychology of Billionaires.


The answer to why most billionaires favor Democrats is increasing their own wealth.  Why you say?  They have already created their billions!  And that, in fact, is the answer!


If a current wealthy person can make it difficult for the next person to become equally wealthy (through increased taxes, regulation, and/or decreased opportunities),  then their wealth becomes a lot more valuable!  They can make money without doing anything!  In fact, they may have hit a plateau where the only way they can increase their wealth is to cut off other’s opportunity in order to increase the “buying power” of their own wealth!

What do you think??  Do you think the above is right?  Or do you think there is another reason?  If so .. what?



    



No, I don't agree with that statement. Many billionares wish to pay back others for their good fortune, and their is nothing wrong with that. They also don't have to worry about their taxes going up by say, 5%, causing them to really feel the pain.


Look at the so called robber barons. The National Gallery, Ford Foundation, Stanford, Carnegie Hall, Carnegie Mellon U, just to name a few, all given by the wealthy for the betterment of society. All could be considered liberal acts, but all were done without govt interference. It should remain that way.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 12, 2012 - 8:02PM #13
catboxer
Posts: 14,012

OK, I did exactly what I said I wouldn't.


There are 86 billionaires on that list, but I didn't count Leona Helmsley (a Democrat) because she's been dead for quite some time, and was a very small, miserly donor at any rate.


I came up with 39 Republicans, 34 Democrats, and 12 people who appear unaligned, or maybe apolitical, or perish the thought, politically active but not in either of the big parties.


That leads me to conclude what I thought already, that the Democrats are just as complicit as the Republicans in the corruption, dysfunction, and malfunction (with evil intent) of national government. The Republicans just have more of what the French call "I don't know what."


suddenly, Jimmy spun around, and discovered that there was much more in the political universe than just pachyderms and cuddies.

Adepto vestri stercore simul.ttr
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 13, 2012 - 8:48AM #14
Bodean
Posts: 9,398

Apr 12, 2012 -- 8:02PM, catboxer wrote:


OK, I did exactly what I said I wouldn't.


There are 86 billionaires on that list, but I didn't count Leona Helmsley (a Democrat) because she's been dead for quite some time, and was a very small, miserly donor at any rate.


I came up with 39 Republicans, 34 Democrats, and 12 people who appear unaligned, or maybe apolitical, or perish the thought, politically active but not in either of the big parties.


That leads me to conclude what I thought already, that the Democrats are just as complicit as the Republicans in the corruption, dysfunction, and malfunction (with evil intent) of national government. The Republicans just have more of what the French call "I don't know what."


suddenly, Jimmy spun around, and discovered that there was much more in the political universe than just pachyderms and cuddies.





Cat in the side bar on the right, you will find 2008 election A List.  That is where I was looking.


And .. thanks for posting you look at the whole list of Billionaires.


At the very least, we can say that the mantra that the "GOP is the party of the rich" is false.  There's equally as many Billionaires in the Democrats as the GOP, and more "Rich and Famous" in the Democrats than in the GOP.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 13, 2012 - 9:14AM #15
Bodean
Posts: 9,398

Apr 12, 2012 -- 7:36PM, aarroottoonn wrote:


No, I don't agree with that statement. Many billionares wish to pay back others for their good fortune, and their is nothing wrong with that. They also don't have to worry about their taxes going up by say, 5%, causing them to really feel the pain.


Look at the so called robber barons. The National Gallery, Ford Foundation, Stanford, Carnegie Hall, Carnegie Mellon U, just to name a few, all given by the wealthy for the betterment of society. All could be considered liberal acts, but all were done without govt interference. It should remain that way.





I don't know that I would agree with the "motive" that you say.  I think many billionaires acts of giving may be tied up in establishing a legacy.  As such they engage in Philanthropy in areas of their own choosing.  This is not the same as paying taxes, where your dollars go to fund things that you may or may not support.  But, this is a different topic.


What I do know, and more on point with the thread topic, is that the Rich who support "tax increases" are no more inclinded to give their money to the Government than the Rich who oppose tax increases.  In fact, as noted by the Buffett example .. he pays less on a percentage than his secretary.  To be sure, he doesn't pay less because of established law.  Buffet could easily whoop out the EZ form and file on the maximum percentage.  Rather, Buffett pays less because he has a high dollar accountant who's job is to ensure that Buffett pays as little in taxes as possible.  That is why is total payment is less in percentage than his secretary.  And, then of course, there is the capital gains tax rate vs the income tax rate.


Just observing ... the people who support these tax increases are the people who do not file on "income", but rather, make their money through other avenues, such as royalties, dividends, capital gains, etc.  THUS ... any support they have for raising the top marginal income tax rate is an act that does not apply to them, but rather to millions of hard working small business owners and the like.


I'd like to see their tune if the GOP .... or even the Democrats, introduced a bill that TARGETED them.  Thus, we leave all the tax cuts in place that benefit normal people [which constitute the majority of the Bush Tax cuts, like child credits, lower tax brackets, deductions for small businesses, etc], but put in place specific tax increases that target dividends above a certain limit, royalties, bonuses over a certain limit, capital gains over a certain limit, or cap off loopholes such that they continue to benefit small business and individuals, but limit the accessiblity to the uber rich.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 13, 2012 - 12:26PM #16
arielg
Posts: 9,116

Apr 12, 2012 -- 8:02PM, catboxer wrote:


OK, I did exactly what I said I wouldn't.


There are 86 billionaires on that list, but I didn't count Leona Helmsley (a Democrat) because she's been dead for quite some time, and was a very small, miserly donor at any rate.


I came up with 39 Republicans, 34 Democrats, and 12 people who appear unaligned, or maybe apolitical, or perish the thought, politically active but not in either of the big parties.


That leads me to conclude what I thought already, that the Democrats are just as complicit as the Republicans in the corruption, dysfunction, and malfunction (with evil intent) of national government. The Republicans just have more of what the French call "I don't know what."


suddenly, Jimmy spun around, and discovered that there was much more in the political universe than just pachyderms and cuddies.




This seems to be enough to put to rest the alleged correlation between wealth and ideology.  The reasons some people get wealthy and others don't  have deeper roots that political ideology.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook