Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Democrats the party of the rich

I've been saying that for a long time. I wish I could find the poll that said that millionaires voted for republicans (by same as middle class margin), with BILLIONaires voting 2-1 for democrats.

With the Jon Stykers, Peter Lewises, Haim Sabans, George Soroses, Steve Bings, Mark Warners, Jon Corzines, and Hollywoods of the world out there, it's not a surprise. They claim to know whats best for us and want to regulate our lives....for our own good.

The NAtional Review


The GOP has historically been the party of both Main Street and Wall Street. But over the past decade, the plutocrats have increasingly become Democrats. Billionaires for Bush are increasingly outnumbered by billionaires who hate Bush. And Republicans in limousines are being outpaced by Democrats in Lear Jets.

With soft-money contributions banned, the super rich can now hope to sway elections with large checks to 527 advocacy groups such as MoveOn.org, Americans Coming Together, and the Media Fund, and by bundling contributions to candidates. Over the last four elections, the Democrats have dominated on both accounts. Consider these numbers, from the nonpartisan, non-profit Center for Responsive Politics (CRP):
Thus far in 2006, 17 of the top 25 contributors to 527 advocacy groups are funding liberal/Democratic causes, including liberal billionaires George Soros, and Peter Lewis.

In 2004, Democrats made up 15 of the 25 individuals who gave more than $2 million to 527 groups. Of the Senate and House candidates who received “bundled” contributions that year, 9 out of the top 10 in the Senate and 8 out of 10 in the House were Democrats.

In 2002, those who gave a million dollars or more gave $36 million to the Democrats and only $3 million to Republicans, a 12:1 ratio. Those who gave $10,000 or more gave $140 million to the Democrats and just $111 million to Republicans. Of the top 10 individual contributors to candidates that year, only one gave to Republicans.

In 2000, Bush’s “Pioneers” received considerable press for their efforts to raise $100,000 each for the campaign. But the really big donors that year were Democrats. According to the lefty Mother Jones magazine, 18 of the top 25 individual donors to political campaigns were Democrats. In recent years, the Left has been obsessed with the role that the oil and natural-gas industry plays in funding the Republican candidates. Republicans are “in oil companies’ pockets,” says the DNC in one press release. In 2004, according to the CRP, the oil and gas industry pumped $25 million into campaigns, 80 percent of it to the GOP.

But that pales in comparison to industries and interests that fund the Democratic party. That same year lawyers gave $182 million (75 percent to Democrats) and Hollywood donated $32 million (70 percent to Democrats).

Despite all of the rhetoric about rich Republicans, the GOP today is largely a party funded by middle-class voters. The average contribution to the GOP hovers around $50, almost identical with the much ballyhooed Internet “grassroots” presidential campaign of Howard Dean in 2004. The Democrats for some reason won’t release comparable figures.

But the super-rich are not just giving to Democrats, they are increasingly running for office. In the Senate, often called a millionaires club, those with the really big money are Democrats. Of the five U.S. senators worth more than $25 million (John Kerry, Herb, Kohl, John Rockefeller, Dianne Feinstein, and Lincoln Chafee) according to Roll Call, only Chafee is a Republican.

Ned Lamont, currently running for the Senate in Connecticut, is only the latest in a long line of Democrats who have self-financed their campaigns. Thus far he has poured $4 million of his $100 million fortune into the race.

In 2000, Democrat John Corzine poured $60 million of his own money to win a Senate seat in New Jersey, Mark Dayton spent $12 million to win in Minnesota, Maria Cantwell $10 million Washington, and Herb Kohl $5 million to retain his seat in Wisconsin. In contrast, those Republicans who self-financed, according to Steen, did so in much smaller amounts.


And here's another article, this from the Washington Times.

He also found that more than half of the wealthiest households were concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats hold both Senate seats.

"If you take the wealthiest one-third of the 435 congressional districts, we found that the Democrats represent about 58 percent of those jurisdictions," Mr. Franc said.


Let's look at the top counties by per capita income and see who they voted for.

1 Marin County, California $44,962 - 73% Kerry
2 New York County, New York (Manhattan) $42,922 - 82% Kerry
3 Falls Church, Virginia $41,052 - 65% Kerry
4 Pitkin County, Colorado $40,811 - 68% Kerry
5 Fairfield County, Connecticut $38,350 - 51% Kerry
6 Teton County, Wyoming $38,260 - 53% Kerry
7 Somerset County, New Jersey $37,970 - 52% Bush
8 Arlington County, Virginia $37,706 - 68% Kerry
9 City of Alexandria, Virginia[1] $37,645 - 67% Kerry
10 Morris County, New Jersey $36,964 - 58% Bush
11 Fairfax County, Virginia $36,888 - 53% Kerry
12 Westchester County, New York $36,726 - 58% Kerry
13 Hunterdon County, New Jersey $36,370 - 60% Bush
14 San Mateo County, California $36,045 - 69% Kerry
15 Montgomery County, Maryland $35,684 - 66% Kerry
16 San Miguel County, Colorado $35,329 - 72% Kerry
17 Douglas County, Colorado $34,848 - 67% Bush
18 Los Alamos County, New Mexico $34,646 - 52% Bush
19 San Francisco County, California $34,556 - 83% Kerry
20 Summit County, Utah $33,767 - 52% Bush (2nd lowest in state)
21 Bergen County, New Jersey $33,638 - 52% Kerry
22 Loudoun County, Virginia $33,530 - 56% Bush
23 Collin County, Texas $33,345 - 71% Bush
24 Hamilton County, Indiana $33,109 - 74% Bush
25 Santa Clara County, California $32,795 - 64% Kerry
26 Oakland County, Michigan $32,534 - 50% Kerry

Democrats the party of the workin' man? As Al Borland says, "I don't think so, Tim."

7 comments:

Editor said...

So, in other words, thanks to George Bush, the Republican Party base is now the poor and the stupid.

Republican Michigander said...

What does that say for John Kerry. He couldn't even beat Bush.....

Communications guru said...

What a joke. You need to come back to the 21st Century. The Republican Party hasn’t been the “party of Main Street” since the nifty ‘50s and Eisenhower if it ever was. The Democratic Party helped create and has stood for the middle class, and it has also helped the poor survive and provide them an opportunity to better themselves.

“Billionaires for Bush are increasingly outnumbered by billionaires who hate Bush.” So is the rest of the country. I’ll bet the “Republicans for Bush” are increasingly outnumbered by Republicans who hate Bush, too.

Great sources for your fallacy, too. The rightwing National Review and the Moonie Washington Times. I have no idea what your list proves. Nine of the 26 went for Bush, and you have some that went fro Kerry by 51 percent or even 50 percent from predominantly Republican Oakland County. Unlike the Republicans, Democrats have a much larger tent, and we have plenty of rich people in the party as well as working class union people. I have always been told education is a way to be successful and increase your earning power. I have also heard that college campuses are full of liberals and are “liberal hotbeds.” Gee, I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that they are there getting an education that will improve their earning power?

This is one of your most ridiculous rants among many. Some of the Billionaires for Bush are seeing the light and jumping off the wagon like the rest of the country, so we get a rant like this. Do you need a tissue to wipe away your tears?

You’re dam right the Democratic Party is still the party of the workingman.

keithr said...

Kevin,

As a professional writer (one who gets compensation for writing) you should be able to do better with the clarity and factual content of your posts.

Rich people make up less than 10% of voters. If all the rich people in the U.S. voted Republican Democrats would win every election with 90% of the vote.

But a large chunk of the rich vote Democrat along with 90% of low income voters.

Yet about half of voters nationwide vote Republican. It doesn't take advanced math to figure out that most of the Republican vote comes from the middle class.

Communications guru said...

Can’t dan speak for himself?

Your logic does not make sense, and I see more clarity and fact than dan is putting out. If your logic is correct, then why aren’t Republicans controlling the U.S. House and Senate if only 10 percent of the country voted for Democrats? Yes, Democrats do have a large tent, unlike your party, and some are rich and many more are educated, which is a catalyst to higher income. More than half of the voters nationwide vote for Democrats with the majority from the middle class.

Republicans are the party of Wall Street and have been for a long time.

DZ1 said...

Confessions of a Recovering Democrat

The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. It took me thirty-four years to admit my problem. I was a Democrat -- a liberal, Republican-hating, pseudo-socialist. I grew up in a typical union, blue-collar household where my father and grandfather argued over just how deep in hell Richard Nixon and rest of the Republicans deserved to reside. Their fervent hope was that God had a special place in the fiery depths for these rich, elitist, elephant-loving capitalists.
Before every holiday meal, rather than saying a blessing, my grandfather, seated at the head of the table, would look out lovingly over his children and grandchildren, smile and say, "That SOB Nixon would be mad as hell if he could see how good we have it." Over the years Nixon turned to Ford, then to Reagan. Apparently President Carter was happy we were eating so well. I was programmed with the dogma of class warfare from a very early age.
As a teenage Democrat I actually believed the government had a file on me from kindergarten on and if I did everything right, scored well on my tests, lettered in three varsity sports, made the National Honor Society, I would be rewarded with opportunities. This is easy to believe when you're young. Your student file has all the details of everything you've done, your grades, your extra-curricular activities. My senior year I received an almost embarrassing number of awards and scholarships for my work. Surely Uncle Sam was watching and couldn't wait to get his hands on me. He probably has great things waiting for me, I thought. Alas, sometime in college I discovered this wasn't Red China and no one was looking at a master file full of accomplishments deciding whether I would be an Olympic athlete or an astronaut. I was living in a free society where I had to make my own way. That's a hard thing for a young Democrat to realize.
In 1984 my grandfather died and in his memory I voted for Walter Mondale. Yes, grief had truly robbed me of all reason. In 1988 I attended my first Young College Democrats meeting. Shortly after, I voted for George Bush. I considered myself a Truman/Kennedy Democrat and, although I did not vote for Reagan, I just could not bring myself to vote for Michael Dukakis. My hypocrisy would only go so far.
I returned to my Democratic roots when the Democratic Congress voted to cut defense spending after Desert Storm and I blindly blamed George Bush, who I reasoned was the Commander in Chief and therefore responsible. A "new" Democrat was on the rise and once again I was proud of my party.
Throughout the 1990s I was an Air Force officer and a Democrat, making me the minority in my chosen profession. I spent the next eight years defending the policies of the "new" Democrat, Bill Clinton. I was the butt of many jokes for my liberal stances. One of my colleagues hung a poster on the squadron bulletin board announcing a Clinton rally was to be held at my house. The activities included burning old draft cards, a screening of a Jane Fonda movie and a special singing engagement by Barbra Streisand. Bring your own pot and be ready to inhale.
I found myself in many debates with my friends arguing in favor of changing the minimum wage to a "fair" wage and increasing taxes on the wealthy, whom I despised since they built their wealth on the backs of the working man. I viewed the concept of a free market as simply Republican words designed to trick the masses into believing market forces controlled the prices they paid. The Government had to watch over and regulate all parts of the economy so the rich, elitist bastards couldn't take advantage of the poor working man. Like most Democrats, I believed in good paying jobs, but hated those who made those jobs possible.
After I left Government service and entered the business world, I had a simple revelation. I discovered the retail price of my company's product is completely dependent on the price of our competitor's product. This forces us to manufacture our product better and cheaper. The more efficient we perform, the greater our profits. The greater our profits, the more investors we attract, driving our stock price up and, consequently, the value of our 401K and all those who have invested in our company. The more money the investors make, the more they have to re-invest and grow the economy. The more the economy grows, the more jobs are created and the more revenue the Government receives in taxes.
I could no longer deny the simple genius of a free-market, capitalist economy and this represents a fundamental difference between my beliefs and those of the modern Democrat Party. At the most basic level it boils down to the definition of the American Dream. I believe our system of personal liberties and a free enterprise, capitalist economic system maximizes an individual's ability to fulfill his or her potential. Success takes hard work, a level of ambition, a never-ending development of new skill sets and, yes, some level of risk.
The modern liberal believes our free market, capitalist system is rigged against the common man. They believe the government should act as a "Big Brother," a protector in all aspects of life. Completely lacking faith in the abilities and spirit of the individual, they seek to insulate us from the risks and rewards of capitalism. They do this by the re-distribution of wealth, taking money from investors and funneling it through the Federal government in the form of entitlements. Nearly all Democrat legislative initiatives involve some increase in entitlements. This populist strategy has been very effective in winning elections for the Democrats.
This “take from the rich and give to everyone else" policy disregards one critical factor. The wealthy do not keep their money idle. Democrats seem to think men like Bill Gates keeps his billions buried in his backyard. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the power of money. Wealthy men and women know that in order to stay wealthy they must make their money work for them. They invest this capital into new businesses, large and small, new technologies, new products and new services. All of these create jobs, jobs the common man relies on for his paycheck and the Federal Government relies on for tax revenues. Every dollar invested in a new company is done so with the idea that it will grow and earn profits, which will be paid to the employees, the investors and eventually in taxes. When I was a Democrat I understood this concept, but I didn't believe it.
Today, I'm a believer and I'm not alone. The worst thing to happen to the Democrat Party in the last thirty years is the 401K. Now the common man is invested in the market, and more and more have an understanding of the genius of a free market economy. People have begun to realize that maybe the rich don't bury their cash. Maybe they create jobs with it. Men who a generation ago would have retired to a life of adequacy are now buying RVs and traveling the nation in retirement at a much younger age. The blue-collar conversations in the lunch room concern return on investments and speculation about what the Fed will do about interest rates. The average American is becoming educated and that works against the Democrats.
Aside from matters of economics, I admit I really never saw eye-to-eye with the Democrats regarding national defense. Democrats from history like Roosevelt, Truman, JFK and even Johnson, did not coddle dictators -- Nazi, Communist or otherwise -- and they openly opposed oppression and tyranny wherever they found them. Ronald Reagan's stance against the tyranny of Communism was a direct descendant of Truman's and Kennedy's policies. Jimmy Carter, and every Democrat since, has not shown the will or resolve to oppose tyranny. They seem to be firm believers in peaceful coexistence with evil. Some prevalent members of the modern Democrat Party have echoed

the sentiment that the United States constitutes the greatest threat to world peace. Even as a former Democrat, I can't explain this reasoning.
President John F. Kennedy summed up our national conscience best when he said: “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” I believe it is our duty as a free people to make this our national motto. Kennedy does not suggest the path will be easy, but it is noble, just and right. I simply do not see this sentiment in today's Democrat Party. I wish I did.

roland said...

Well said dz1