Who are the despised rich people? It's you guys. The Democrats.

This article fascinates me. Some my richest friends are actually democrat.


Before I met them, I always assumed there was a earnings difference between us. Phew, I was right, but not like I thought (which happens often.)


There's just something wrong with a huge group of folks that have that much money and want to take more. We agree on this, yes?


http://times-news.com/opinion/x19230...ed-rich-people



That’s right let’s all hate the rich. Who are those one percenters, anyway?

Twelve of the 20 richest Americans are Democrats. Gates, Buffet, Ellison the richest are Democrats and gave exclusively to the Democratic Party last election.

In fact, the top three on the list: Bill Gates, Warren Buffett & Larry Ellison are all Democrats. Together, they are worth $126 billion.

An analysis of the Top 20 Richest People in America (from Forbes Top 100) reveals that a full 60 percent are actually Democrats. The top 1000 are comprised of 65 percent Democrats.

Furthermore, if you look at it from a “family” point of view and not as individuals, thereby eliminating duplication caused by people from the same family being included in that Top 20 list (Wal-Mart & Koch) that ratio widens even further to: 25 percent Republican / 75 percent Democrat. Wow, how’s that for myth busting?

The next you hear Michael Moore, a millionaire who likes to condemn the rich, remember these words of his: “I’m a millionaire, I’m a multi-millionaire. I’m filthy rich. You know why I’m a multi-millionaire? ‘Cause multi-millions like what I do. That’s pretty good, isn’t it?”

He lives in a million-dollar apartment, and boasts of that as well: “I walk among them. I live on the island of Manhattan, a three-mile-wide strip of land that is luxury home and corporate suite to America’s elite..... Those who run your life live in my neighborhood. I walk in the streets with them each day” (Michael Moore, Stupid White Men, p. 51).

For vacations, he keeps another million-dollar beachfront house in Michigan. Moore has quite an investment portfolio as well, yet he visits the “occupiers” and incites them to hate the rich and conservative.

Amazingly, a copy of Moore’s schedule D from one of his tax filings shows that the concerned humanitarian owned almost 2,000 shares of Boeing, nearly 1,000 shares of Sonoco, more than 4,000 shares of Best Foods, more than 3,000 shares of Eli Lilly, more than 8,000 shares of Bank One, and more than 2,000 shares of Halliburton.

Actually, Moore owns many baseball caps, of which his butler gets one dirty for him before his TV appearances. “Sicko?” Mike you’re the top of the heap!

Analyzing the Forbes data takes us even further. Democrats outweigh Republicans.

Not just because of Michael Moore, but in terms of the number of uber-millionaires, but also with their net worth.

In this Top 20 group, Democrats have a combined net worth of $263.1 billion while the Republicans have a combined net worth of only $143.9 billion — almost half that of Democrats.

Out of the Top 15 Richest Politicians in America, not counting Michael Bloomburg, who claims to be independent, nine of them are Democrats.

John Corazine, and John Kerry, both far richer than Romney and have never been condemned by the media or rank and file Democrats for their immense wealth.

With regard to the famed “richest 400 Americans,” according to the compiler, Forbes magazine, more than half, 233, affiliate themselves with the Democratic Party.

So the next time you hear a liberal whine about the “Evil Rich People,” remember it is a form of self loathing. Remind them and everyone around you that it is the Democrats who comprise the largest percentage of those “Evil Rich People.”

You might add that if the top 400 own fifty percent of Americas’ wealth, it is Democrats who own 65 percent of the 50 percent of the nation’s wealth.

Actually, Democrats are the 65 percenters or are more than half of the one percenters. So the rest of us are part of the 99.35 percenters!. Frightening isn’t it?

Arthur Squires Jr.

Flintstone

Kayla for someone like yourself who just recently made a comment on why we are in September and there have been no Presidential debates yet- or the same person who said she would vote for Hillary, but not Obama, but would for Romney when in Theory Obama and Hillary's political views are much closer than Hillary and Romney's- I really just get amused at your post.
You try so hard to "fit in" but anyone can tell you know zip about politics- sorry Kayla but you are no Skylar.

Some of the richest people in the US are actually okay with tax reform:

The Buffett Rule is named after American investor Warren Buffett, who publicly stated in early 2011 that he disagreed with rich people, like himself, paying less in federal taxes, as a portion of income, than the middle class, and voiced support for increased income taxes on the wealthy.[4] The rule would implement a higher minimum tax rate for taxpayers in the highest income bracket, to ensure that they do not pay a lower percentage of income in taxes than less-affluent Americans.[5] In October 2011, Senate leader Harry Reid (D–Nev.) proposed a 5.6 percent surtax on millionaires to pay for new stimulus provisions, but the change did not go through.[6]
A White House statement released in January 2012 defined the rule as part of "measures to ensure everyone making over a million dollars a year pays a minimum effective tax rate of at least 30 percent ... implemented in a way that is equitable, including not disadvantaging individuals who make large charitable contributions."[7] The White House also stated that "no household making more than $1 million each year should pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than a middle class family pays."[8]
The Buffett Rule was not in the President's 2013 budget proposal and the White House initially stressed it as a guideline rather than a legislative initiative.[9] The rule, however, was later submitted for deliberation as US Senate Bill S. 2059, Paying a Fair Share Act of 2012.[3][10] On 16 April 2012, the bill received 51 affirmative votes, but was stopped by a Republican filibuster that required 60 votes to proceed to debate and a vote on final passage.[11][12]

Bill Gates:

“Even as the economy improves and you end the wars, you’re going to have to raise taxes and certainly, whatever form it takes, and I’m not an expert on this — the rich should bear a larger increase than the rest,” the billionaire founder of Microsoft told Fox News Thursday in Switzerland, where he is attending the World Economic Forum.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz26w35Ptwl

Larry Ellison

A corporation's primary goal is to make money. Government's primary role is to take a big chunk of that money and give it to others.

Although Larry Ellison has thoroughly enjoyed the Bush era tax cuts and the millions of dollars worth a rebates he received in return, I don't see any of these people saying that they shouldn't be taxed or as republicans say "punished" for being richer. They acknowledge that the most wealthy people should pay higher taxes than the rest of Americans.

Wellendowed, I'm so flattered you read so much of what I write! I do declare, you made my whole day.

You might want to read a little closer on the thread topic, which I see you can't argue with.


And Sky, you are talking redistribution of wealth, which is a Marx theory. You can't get around that. If that's what you believe in then OWN it. If you are a Marx person then say so. Why would you guys NOT own what you believe.... unless you think it's wrong somehow? Or maybe you are afraid others won't see it as the beautiful thing you guys try and make it sound.

If I make more money because I work my ass off, anyone that wants what I have and is willing to take it by force, is my enemy. If you want to ASK me, I'll probably give it all to you, but I will not be forced to do squat.

Taxing is redistribution of wealth no matter which way you look at it, taking money out of our pockets and distributing it to local and federal agencies is how our country is run. That's how our public schools are funded, roads are built, it's how we can pay police, firefighters, local senior programs and so on and so on.

Even Countries with no Income taxes like the UAE get their support by taxing Oil Companies almost 55% , their revenue from oil companies are almost 80% even they take from the rich. Most countries that have no Income tax rely on the revenue of their natural resources, taxing the Oil and Natural gas corporations or have high taxes for imported goods. And even in the countries without Income Taxes they still require employees to allot money towards SOCIAL services or require employers to give all employees pensions.

Countries that have no Income taxes are

Andorra
Bahamas
Brunei
Kuwait
Maldives
Monaco
Nauru
Oman
Qatar
United Arab Emirates
Vanuatu

It's not about disliking the rich; its about several things. Taxes are one of them. But, also support for social nets, regulation in key areas (especially finance, working conditions, ), so that the game doesn't inadvertently or advertently become rigged for the already haves. You don't have to lose your conscious just because you've made a couple of bucks, Warren Buffet probably being the best example of that. I am not a great student of political economy by any means, and I have never fully understood the primacy of producers over workers. You may own the means of production (whatever that means), but if you have no one to produce and no one to buy, what have you got? I'm all for placing a cap on companies being able to outsource jobs overseas. Once you have reached a certain profit margin, say a Microsoft, an apple, you have to start giving back, factories here, living wages, etc. Is that redistribution of wealth? I think of it more along the lines of business ethics. Where is it written that a business or the wealthy have to have profit-driven tunnel vision? I don't think of myself as a whiny liberal, just someone who believes that government is not a bad word and that it is not inaliable right to make as much money as possible off of the backs others. Any corporation's raison d'etre is to the welfare of itself; the government's raison d'etre is the welfare of us all. Both good reasons for being; they just work best together.

And Skylar Cruz, you are awesome! I can't wait until he movie comes out!!

oh I get it now ... romneys tax hike aimed at people who make over 250K is acutally a tax hike against democrats ..

no wonder the rightwing doesnt care

<<<<<<<------- Available to despised rich people.

And Skylar Cruz, you are awesome! I can't wait until he movie comes out!! Originally Posted by Annef

Thank you sexy! I do what I can

<<<<<<<------- Available to despised rich people. Originally Posted by Fancyinheels

Ditto over here!

http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6633406/we-are-the-1

Kayla for someone like yourself who just recently made a comment on why we are in September and there have been no Presidential debates yet- or the same person who said she would vote for Hillary, but not Obama, but would for Romney when in Theory Obama and Hillary's political views are much closer than Hillary and Romney's- I really just get amused at your post.
You try so hard to "fit in" but anyone can tell you know zip about politics- sorry Kayla but you are no Skylar. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

HatingKayla just keeps picking her nose and eating her boogers and telling us what wonderful manners she hasas

<<<<<<<------- Available to despised rich people. Originally Posted by Fancyinheels

Well put, Fancy. Ditto. I will personally help to redistribute your wealth. Thinking about changing my tag line now to "Job-Creator Friendly"

HatingKayla just keeps picking her nose and eating her boogers and telling us what wonderful manners she hasas Originally Posted by WTF

How polite of you!

How polite of you! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

this is the Sandbox not a Finishing School


well on second thought, how you finish might be of some consequence

this is the Sandbox not a Finishing School


well on second thought, how you finish might be of some consequence Originally Posted by CJ7

Also not middle school. Did he just mention boogers? for reals? concur with old guy, rude and pre-adolescent. Can we not just shoot the bull without being being outright insulting to one another. Or at the very least, without mentioning nose-picking or boogers.