Thursday, August 23, 2012

Democrats Want To Eat The Rich--It's Cannibalism

With all the talk of Republican candidate Mitt Romney not releasing his income taxes to cover up his millions, I'm reminded of a story. Andrew Carnegie, like Romney, gave considerable sums to charity. Upon his death, the public found out just how much. With only a few million left in Carnegie's personal estate, John D. Rockefeller is reputed to have said at Carnegie's funeral “why, he wasn't even rich.”

Compared to some of the biggest Democratic donors and politicians, Romney is a piker. But somehow, the mainstream media have avoided pointing out that Barack Obama's big donors are some of the richest individuals and corporations in the world. The big three who favor Obama and the Democrats are Bill Gates of Microsoft; Warren Buffet, the prairie magus; and Larry Ellison of Oracle fame. Sixty percent of the individuals on Forbes's Top Twenty List are Democrats. Consider “family wealth” where one individual enriched all his relatives (like the Kochs and the Waltons) and the ratio becomes 75% to 25% Democrat.

The contributions from megacorporations tend to mimic those of the Democrat-leaning individuals. In both cases, the Democrats have more and give less than Republicans. Romney himself showed that if he had not contributed to non-profit charities on the tax filing he has released, his tax bite would have been close to twenty-three percent. That's about comparable to what the “middle class” is paying, at least until Obama finishes with destroying the middle class.

Within that Top Twenty, Democrats not only outnumber Republicans, but they also have a decided edge in their wealth. Democrats out-wealth the Republicans on the list by $263.1 billion to $143.9 billion, or about two-to-one. But when it comes to charity, Republicans contribute more than Democrats. Sure, it's a tax deduction, but the money goes directly to the charities rather than passing through multiple layers of federal bureaucracy and misuse of taxpayer funds to get to the same people needing help. The Democratic presidential team of Obama and Biden is notably cheap in giving to charity. The team of Romney and Ryan is much more generous, and both give freely to their respective churches.

So—the mega-rich Democrats must be spending money to support their belief in the Democratic Party, right? Well, no. At least nowhere in the same proportions as believing Republican billionaires. From that Top Twenty, the Democrats in this cycle so far have spent $2.1 million in direct contributions to either the Democratic Party or a Democratic candidate, where the Republicans have spent $5.2 million of their party or their candidate. Figures on spending on the much bigger PACs are harder to calculate, but appear to reflect direct contributions.

Again the Democrats never mention these discrepancies between what they say and what they are. The mainstream media play right along, attacking the Kochs and Waltons for not paying their “fair share” while never making a peep about George Soros. Democrat Jon Corzine made so much money at Goldman-Sachs and MF Global that he was able essentially to buy the governorship of New Jersey and then its Senate seat. When MF Global came up billions of dollars short, Corzine basically shrugged his shoulders and said “s**t happens.”

I have no resentments for rich people regardless of their party. I wish I had as much, but I don't and that's life. I don't want to take their money away from them to equalize my wealth. What I do resent is a political party which claims to be the party of the poor and middle class having so many mega-wealthy members while using lies and the mainstream media to paint the Republican Party as the party of the undeserving and uncaring rich.

If you can't blow the picture up enough by clicking on it, the words at the bottom say "you are what you eat."

16 comments:

T-Rav said...

At the height of the Bush hatred and the claim that the GOP was controlled by oil barons, I looked up some party donation statistics--trial lawyers alone contribute far more to the Democratic Party than "Big Oil" gives to the Republican Party. But let's not let that get in the way of a good story.

obiwan2009 said...

T-Rav, I also found interesting how often John Kerry's total family wealth is understated, he and his wife would be pretty high up there in wealth if actually counted together, plus if people had the sanity to realize that family wealth is shared, unless one goes through some sort of totally private holdings in marriage, which is a little far-fetched, unless I really don't know marriage, and yes I am still single, so count me out of being an expert.

LawHawkRFD said...

T-Rav: Teachers unions, trial lawyers (ambulance-chasers) and the other service unions are and will continue to be the backbone of Democratic big money financing. But as you say, big oil continues to be the whipping boy for the Democrats. As for the trial lawyers, they will be even more active this time around. Republican moderate-conservative tort reform is not the major issue in this campaign, but it will be part and parcel of future reforms in Medicare and Obamacare and federal tort claims law. They have an extremely lucrative part of their practices in peril at both the state and federal levels.

tryanmax said...

I recall reading something awhile back which indicated that the absolute poorest Americans (something like < $15,000) vote overwhelmingly Democrat. So the Democrat party is literally the party of both rich and poor and the GOP is the true middle-class party.

LawHawkRFD said...

obiwan: Every time someone mentions John Kerry, I start hearing the song "Just A Gigolo." That bloodhound-faced phony married money. It often made me wonder just how desperate the Pickle Princess was to marry that dull visage.

During the Kerry-Bush campaign, that dullard Senator and former Massachusetts Attorney General said: "If elected, I will interpret the Constitution according to prevailing law." The general public didn't really catch it, but a first year law student couldn't miss it. That is a fine statement of the liberal view of the Constitution, but in reality it is exactly the opposite of what the Founders meant and what the Constitution says.

LawHawkRFD said...

tryanmax: And that has been true for decade upon decade. The true middle class (not the one defined by Obamacrats) has been supporting the ultra-rich and the poor time out of mind. At the rate the middle class is being destroyed, that won't be true ten years from now because there will be no middle class. The worst insult a good dedicated Marxist can throw at your average American isn't "rich," it's "bourgeois."

AndrewPrice said...

The Democrats have proven time and again to be the party of bankers, lawyers, unionists, and people who want to leach off the system.

rlaWTX said...

Isn't it pretty much understood by anyone with half a brain cell that a person pretty much has to have $$$ in order to run for office? If not family money, then you have to have earned (or conned it)it yourself. So, why is this still a talking point??? Oh, yeah - identity politics - silly me, I forgot.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: And if they'd admit it, at least they wouldn't be guilty of hypocrisy as well as guilty of all their other sins.

LawHawkRFD said...

rlaWTX: It helps to be rich, but it isn't necessary. Our current community-organizer is proof of that. It's only important that people who do have money and influence see a reason for you to run. The leftist plutocrats and academics saw "something" in Barack Hussein Obama that said "let's back him." He was neither wealthy enough nor smart enough to pull it off by himself. In other words, BHO didn't build his political career himself. LOL

Individualist said...

Lawhawk

We always here about the Rich and the Poor but I think there is a different dynamic that is more important.

That is the people who earn their money from employment and operating active businesses, managing and renting real estate and sweat equity and those who primarily live off of "inherited" income. Investments, government grants, pensions, etc.

When you view the income from this angle the Rich and Poor that Tyrnamax speaks of in his post are not so dissimilar. Each gets money they do not earn but are granted from investment, inheritance or government grants.

Oddly enough it is the people who "earn" the money through sweat equity that pay the lion's share of tax. These people pay unemployment tax, social security (15.3% up to 100K now I think and 2.9% on every dollar above that). They also pay the property taxes, the sales taxes. These are all in addition to the straight federal income tax.

But it does not stop there. Investment income is usually given a tax break. People get tax breaks for investing in green initiatives the government likes, tax breaks for real estate and capital gain taxes. This benifits a George Soros, a Warren Buffet and even the tech guys whose money from investments probably exceeds the money they earn from business enterprises.

The middle class republicans earn through employment and by and large the "Rich" Republicans the Dems canter on about are usuaully self employed and run a business. Even if it is verry successful they are verry much small business minded and not glorified super investors.

As I said I think this distinction is more important and the GOP should find a way to make that distinction relevant to the public.

LawHawkRFD said...

Indi: You're on the right track. Still, a large percentage of what I classify as middle class are small businessmen, not just wage earners. The family businesses, and those with five to five hundred employees. Small and medium sized businesses, the engine of job creation, are in terrible trouble. But that isn't to say I make a special category for inherited wealth which should be taxed punitively to pay for the difficulties of wage earners and small businesses.

Investment is money at work, and I don't want to see it crippled. I do think government grants take the risk out of investment, as has been demonstrated by Obama favoritism and government-funded failures. Pensions are not part of the problem, excessive pensions (union and government-backed) are. Most Americans work hard all their lives to pay for those pensions, and until the welfare state decided everybody should get retirement money whether they ever worked or not, even Social Security included that concept.

Quite simply, "sweat equity" sounds too much like "the labor theory of value" for my tastes. A flat tax or fair tax would solve many of those problems without targeting specific classes, rich, poor or middle.

Another perception that steers the general public wrong is the conflation of "taxes" with "income taxes." That is why high taxes on capital gains do so much damage. They cripple investment. And just because someone earning much of his living off capital gains doesn't turn a wrench to tighten a bolt, that doesn't mean his money isn't "working."

Investment isn't the problem, the government picking winners and losers and skewing the market is the problem. Tax breaks for investment should be granted based solely on bottom-lines and sound business plans, not on favored government agendas like "green energy."

It would be nice if nobody had to make his living off the sweat of his brow, but some people are just luckier or smarter than others.

I just don't buy the "working class hero" concept. Small and medium-size businesses are the heart of the Republican Party, but the two together form the blend that makes the party work and America work. The Democrats don't understand that, or don't care. Without the investment, hard work, and risk-taking involved in creating and sustaining a small business, there would be only big business, large corporations, and the government.

K said...

Based on the responses, I'd say it's unanimous; the middle class is the natural prey of the left. Unfortunately, such folks tend to be more sheep than wolf hunters.

It would be interesting, with middle class baby boomers retiring, how many might consider making a hobby of taking one portion of the leftist machine, say the schools, and forming organizations to politically reform them to take back the culture.

StanH said...

Democrats = hypocrisy much! Once again this illustrates perfectly liberal projection. Democrats represent the wealthiest, spoiled, guilt ridden jerks in this country. It would be fun to bring on a ground swell for a wealth tax ala Huey Long of 90% (I’m sure we could bring OWS aka Barry’s Brats along.) The howls from these spoiled brats would be deafening, and revealing. I would bet there would be wholesale, “ Road to Damascus conversions,” to the conservative side.

Individualist said...

Lawhawk

I agree in part and disagree in part. I do believe in a flatter tax. I think all income should be taxed at a flat rate (max 19% upper marginal rate would be good, starting at everything made over 10,000 without any deductions.) I think that many services the government pays for should be left to other devices. PBS for instance if it were a private sector enterprise from the beginning could probably fund its entire budget off of the royalties of Sesame Street products.

I disagree in part in that I firmly beleive that a capital gains cut in rate favors one kind of income over another. I think that it helps those who have saved maintian that savings at the expense of someone who has to earn it.

I think the 19% flat tax should fund the base operation of goverment and any other specific items such as roads, grants to schools, etc. should be funded from a 5% across the board sales tax.

I think tax rates should be very simple and relatively low.

On the other side these tax credits and subsidies for specific industries, products, behaviors etc. need to go completely. the US farm industry does not need a subsidy and certainly Archer Daniels Midland does not need a hand out from the government. This goes for Solyndra, GE and anything else.

Let us not forget that the only President to eliminate a favoritism for Capital Gains in the US tax code was Ronald Reagan. Once he lowered upper marginal rates to 33% and the 28% the 60% exclusion no longer made sense. Its point was that including all capital gains into one period unfairly burdened a tax payer with upper rates on money that was earned over time but not realized till the final sale. Thus a 60% exclusion for long term gains. With a simple flat 28% upper marginal rate this was no longer necessary. all income was taxed at the same low rate.

It was the GOP that brought back capital gains cuts with HW Bush and this was in response to raising of rates. It was wrong headed thinking even if it was popular with investors. Neither the rate should have increased nor should the loophole been created.

It is comfortable to give breaks for investment on the assumption that "saving" money is important. However, it is first more important that people earn an income that allows them to save and secondly if someone is bankrupt or spends money income earnings are the one item no affected by this. You are never short of time, you always have the same amount.

So I am sorry but I am not in the investment credit camp. I don;t think it should be punished. I just think that all income should be treated fairly. I guess I believe in taxation diversity fairness to apply prog methods of labelling things.

LawHawkRFD said...

Indi: In a flat tax/fair tax system, all taxes would be kept lower. A national sales tax would undoubtedly have to be part of it. But it all has to be cleaned up and simplified. In the current system, the exceptions outnumber the rules, and the rich do have one distinct advantage--they have better tax lawyers.

Post a Comment