View Full Version : Who do the super rich support?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>In Richistan, I wrote about a new political divide emerging among the wealthy. </span><span style='font-size: 14pt'>While most Lower Richistani’s ($1 million to $10 million in net worth) were voting Republican,</span> <span style='font-size: 17pt'>most Middle-and Upper Richistanis (those worth $10 million plus and $100 million plus) were voting Democrat.</span>
Lower Richistanis tended to vote almost exclusively based on taxes. But Upper Richistanis placed a higher priority on longer-term societal issues like health care, the environment and education, which are traditional Democrat issues. Some say Upper Richistanis can afford to minimize taxes, since they have plenty of money even after the government takes its share. Others say the ultra-rich have better tax attorneys so they don’t care as much about tax rates.
Yet a new survey shows that the Richistan split is not only alive and well, but it may even be growing.
According to a new survey by Prince & Associates, voters worth $1 million to $10 million are favoring Sen. John McCain, while voters worth $30 million or more are favoring Sen. Barack Obama. The survey of 493 families showed:
More than three quarters of those worth $1 million to $10 million plan to vote for Sen. McCain. Only 15% plan to vote for Sen. Obama (the rest are undecided). <span style='font-size: 17pt'>Of those worth more than $30 million, two-thirds support Sen. Obama, while one third support Sen. McCain.</span>
The reason? Taxes.
Among Lower Richistani’s, 88% cited tax policies as being “important” in making their decision. Only 11% cited the environment, 22% cited health care and 45% cited social issues.
Among the Upper Richistani’s supporting Sen. Obama, tax policies ranked last, with only 16% citing them as important. “Social issues” ranked first, with “policies dealing with wars” ranking second (67%) and Supreme Court nominations and health-care issues ranking next.
Of course, in today’s populist politics, the only thing worse than being the candidate of the wealthy is being the candidate of the superwealthy. You can bet this is one poll that neither candidate will repeat on the campaign trail.
But the survey offers an important insight into the effect of wealth on personal politics. Perhaps the old saying should be changed to: If you’re ultrawealthy and conservative you have no heart; if you’re wealthy and liberal, you have no brain.
Time to go to school Snoopy. (http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/10/13/the-rich-support-mccain-the-super-rich-support-obama/)
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Don't take this the wrong way, but everything you know about the link between business and politics is incorrect.
For nearly the entire 20th century, a simple formula held: Businesspeople like Republicans and don't like Democrats. Republican politicians and voters heartily embrace free trade and lower taxes, while Democratic politicians and their constituencies cotton to protectionism and higher taxes. Over the past century, racial, ethnic, and geographic realignments altered the shape of the national parties beyond recognition. But when it came to the wealthy, there was less movement than in the facial muscles of an over-Botoxed newscaster. Until now.
The trend of the wealthy turning to Democrats is nothing new. Daniel Gross even has a term for it: Bushenfreude—loving Bush's tax cuts while hating Bush; he wrote about its effect on politics in 2003, 2004, and 2006. Gross also noticed i<span style='font-size: 14pt'>n the 2004 elections that the "super-rich" favored Kerry over Bush.</span> ...
The Democrats' funds aren't coming just from enraged readers of DailyKos.com who chip in $20.08 via the Internet. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>They're flowing in from people who can afford to throw $4,000 of post-tax income into campaign coffers. Elections past brought us the Reagan Democrats, NASCAR dads, and soccer moms. Now we have the Fed-Up CEOs and the Angry Yuppies.</span>
Back in 2000, George W. Bush called his base "the haves, and the have-mores." <span style='font-size: 11pt'>But the have-mores are clearly more receptive to Democrats than they were seven years ago. "It's a much easier pitch drumming up support this cycle from businesspeople, there's no question," says Steve Rattner, founder of the private-equity firm Quadrangle Group, who is a longtime Clinton backer. His take: Fed-Up CEOs are reacting to the bungled war in Iraq, poor fiscal and disaster management, and conscious outreach efforts by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.</span> ...
<span style='font-size: 11pt'>But it's not just the ultra-rich who are abandoning Republicans. CNN's exit poll last fall showed that voters in the East making between $150,000 and $200,000 favored Democratic candidates by a 63-37 majority.</span> ...
With the exception of John Edwards, the Democratic candidates and their congressional allies have been loath to embrace measures that would alienate their new friends. The trial balloon floated earlier this month to enact a war income surtax, which would weigh heavily on high earners, was swiftly shot down. Closing the loophole that allows private-equity and hedge-fund managers to pay low long-term capital-gains taxes on the compensation they get for managing other people's money would be a popular way to pay for Democratic priorities. But last week Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told private-equity lobbyists that Congress would move no such legislation this year.
After all, it's primary season. And during primary season, candidates must shore up their base. </div></div>
OH MY! (http://www.slate.com/id/2175725/)
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This article was first published in June 2007. Given the overwhelming financial support that Obama is getting from the super rich who want to make sure that the Joes of this world will no longer be able to rise above their station in life.
<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Many people are expressing puzzlement at the spectacle of the uber rich lavishing “soak-the-rich” Democrats with money and other means of support.</span> And who are these rich people? There is Warren Buffett who seems to think that his accumulation of billions has made him into a superior human being. We have George Soros whose financial success convinced him that he is an intellectual giant. One need only give his writings on politics and economics a cursory look to see how ignorant this man really is.
The arrogant Stephen Bing and the equally arrogant Progressive Insurance chairman Peter Lewis came out of the same repulsive intellectual mold as Soros and Buffett. And let us not omit the insufferable Herbert and Marion Sandler of Golden West Financial. Standing among these paragons of financial and moral virtue is Lloyd Blankfein who is chief executive of Goldman Sachs. There is also the brilliant Robert Rubin whose idiotic economic views deeply impress his peers.
There are two super rich lefties who deserve particular attention. First we have Edwin Janss, founder of the leftwing Janss Foundation, who said that “when the revolution came, the houses of his neighbours would be people’s palaces.” Naturally, his house and wealth would be protected against any revolutionary excesses. Coming second is Aris Anagnos, a Los Angeles real estate magnate and fanatical Marxist-Leninist. ...
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Is it any wonder that the behaviour of super rich Democrats brings me to the subject of fascism which has had a deservedly bad press, even though very few people, particularly journalists, have any real understanding of its origins or so-called philosophy. Even Mussolini, the head of the first truly fascist state, had difficulty in defining it. It was neither communist nor capitalist. It was the middle way or, as they say today, the third way. But there is no middle way between tyranny and liberty.</span>
Now a chief economic characteristic of fascism is that private property is conditional. One held on to one’s house, land, factory, whatever, at the discretion of the state. In other words, private property existed in form only, not in substance. Oddly enough, this aspect of fascism completely escaped large numbers of wealthy Italians. They figured that so long as they played Mussolini’s game they were safe, in more ways than one. The fascist state did not believe in competition or free elections — and neither did a lot of Mussolini’s capitalist supporters.
<span style='font-size: 11pt'>And this brings me to the capitalist Steven Kirsch who gave the Gore war machine $250,000 so that it could literally disenfranchise about 25,000 absentee residents of Seminole and Martin Counties. This was on top of the $500,000 he donated to Gore’s attempt to overthrow the Florida election results.</span> (I should point out that the others I named also supported Gore’s assault on democracy). ...
Kirsch and his fellow billionaires would have the American public believe that this was an honest attempt on their part to help Gore obtain votes to which he was genuinely entitled — even though he had to manufacture them. I want to make it absolutely clear that I believe Kirsch and his fellow plutocrats. There is no doubt in my mind that they saw absolutely nothing wrong with what Gore did. How could any honourable man think otherwise?
That Kirsch is utterly committed to the concept that every vote should count is beyond question. Why he even insisted that they should be counted not once but as many times as it takes to produce the kind of result that would have even embarrassed Mussolini. ...
And let us not forget the lovely Hillary Clinton. A women who, like so many of her Democrat colleagues, has some difficulty in controlling her totalitarian impulses. For instance, when asked for her opinion of the internet she declared that
Without any kind of editing function or gatekeeping function, what does it mean to have the right to defend your reputation, or to respond to what someone says
In other words, the Net must be controlled in the public interest. She and her equally thuggish colleagues are using the same shabby argument to try and shut down talkback radio because, unlike the leftwing mainstream media, Democrats cannot control it. As for trashing reputations, this is the same ruthless liar who tried to destroy Billy R. Dale.
Hillary fired all of the White House Travel Office workers with the intention of handing the business over to the Thomasons, a couple known as Hollywood trash. This little piece of corruption blew up in her face. To ward off an impending scandal she had the FBI charge Billy R. Dale with embezzlement. Dale had been head of the White House Travel Office for many years and had earned a reputation for being scrupulously honest. That did not stop the imperial Hillary from setting out to utterly destroy him for having the impertinence to resist her commands.
Dale was dragged in front of a judge and jury for a crime everyone knew he never committed. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>It took the jury about 15 minutes to find him innocent. Nevertheless, this is another Democrat scandal that the media have tried flush down the memory hole.</span> She and her husband also commandeered over 900 FBI files, an egregious abuse of power and a criminal offence that the media chose to ignore. The Democrats’ media storm troopers can only be counted on to defend the right to privacy when they think it will embarrass Republicans.
The overthrow of the sadistic Saddam’s regime also brought out of the woodwork numerous wealthy Democrats, especially in Hollywood, who obviously share Kirsch’s fascist tendencies.<span style='font-size: 20pt'> The fundamental difference between this lot and Mussolini is that he was at least honest. He never concealed his contempt for democracy and the Rights of Man.</span>
To be a successful fascist you have to be like a communist. In other words, the only thing that counts is power. And all the means available to get power and crush your opponents are justified. Right now the Dems are assaulting the First Amendment by trying to shut down talkback radio on the fatuous grounds that it is not fair to them. This is code for: “If it’s not run by Democrats it must be destroyed”. ...
Durbin, Reid, Pelosi, Obama: the whole pack of them are just waiting for the opportunity to destroy the First Amendment and replace the freedom to choose with the Democrat commissars.
In his address to West Point General Macarthur told the student body that what mattered was “Duty, Honor, Country”. The Democrats have abandoned any sense of duty; they have put the lust for power above Honor. And perhaps worst of all, they have betrayed their country. Let us not forget that it is the Democrats who are playing footsie, with the full support of the media, with dictators and would-be-dictators whose common link is a visceral hatred of America. No wonder the Democrats love them.
Before I finish I think I should warn readers that there is nothing particularly bright about billionaires. Soros’ economic scribblings are a joke as are his comments about Karl Popper. Rubin and Buffett’s economic ramblings would get them thrown out of an serious economics course. During the last several decades I have met all sorts of businessmen and they all remind me of that great business philosopher Mr. Bernstein who stated that
...it’s no trick to make a lot of money, if all you want is to make a lot of money. You take Mr. Kane, it wasn’t money he wanted. Thatcher never did figure him out. Sometimes, even I couldn’t. (Citizen Kane, 1941).
Note: It’s been my experience that the further away a businessman is from the actual production of physical things the greater is the possibility of him voting for leftist policies. Not one of the aforementioned billionaires is directly involved in manufacturing. </div></div>
GOODNESS GRACIOUS! (http://www.brookesnews.com/071607demfascists.html)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.