The Rich Are All Democrats Nowadays

[FollowTheWay]

No, not hard data, but I'm sure it could be found. Just a general collection of loose facts I've collected as a political observer over the years.

This is an interesting thing to pursue.I identified the political party affiliation by the vote of the top 4%. You identified it by the donations of the top 1%. I believe the top 1% is the group that is much more significant because of the political and economic power they have over everyone else including the top 2-4%. They are at the heart of the inequality problem the whole world is experiencing especially America.

Money definitely indicates the amount of political power exerted by Democratic or Republican supporting individuals, corporations and PAC's. It doesn't exactly correlation with the initial question because some wealthy individuals don't seem to be large political contributors. Warren Buffet comes to mind. He supported Hillary in 2016 but didn't give that much money to her. There are probably other examples. Bill Gates seems to be more of a true philanthropist than someone wanting to exert political power.

Here is an interesting web site for doing this kind of research.
Data on Campaign Finance, Super PACs, Industries, and Lobbying

Their description indicates they are unbiased. I would have to check that but it seems to be the case.

Our Vision and Mission: Inform, Empower & Advocate
Nonpartisan, independent and nonprofit, the Center for Responsive Politics is the nation's premier research group tracking money in U.S. politics and its effect on elections and public policy. OUR VISION is for Americans to be empowered by access to clear and unbiased information about money’s role in politics and policy and to use that knowledge to strengthen our democracy. OUR MISSION is to produce and disseminate peerless data and analysis on money in politics to inform and engage Americans, champion transparency, and expose disproportionate or undue influence on public policy.

 

[David Kent]

What I get from this thread is that is OK to be rich unless you are democrat.

 

[InTheLight]

What I get from this thread is that is OK to be rich unless you are democrat.

It's OK to be rich.
It's not OK to say that Republicans are the party of the wealthy when it can so easily be disproven.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

What I get from this thread is that is OK to be rich unless you are democrat.

Not so, but perhaps it should be, since it is Democrats that want to take, take, take, tax, tax, tax. Perhaps we should help them put their money where their mouth is and just confiscate ALL of their wealth, since they are feeling so generous with everyone else's money. Feel what I'm sayin'?

 

[FollowTheWay]

It's OK to be rich.
It's not OK to say that Republicans are the party of the wealthy when it can so easily be disproven.

Actually, it's not OK to be rich. Inequality is killing the Middle Class. I agree with Warren Buffet. Tax rates on the rich need to be raised both to combat inequality and reduce the deficit which has risen to almost $1 T under Trump and the Republican tax b ill.

 

[InTheLight]

Actually, it's not OK to be rich. Inequality is killing the Middle Class. I agree with Warren Buffet. Tax rates on the rich need to be raised both to combat inequality and reduce the deficit which has risen to almost $1 T under Trump and the Republican tax b ill.

No, spending needs to be cut.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

 

[just-want-peace]

Actually, it's not OK to be rich. Inequality is killing the Middle Class. I agree with Warren Buffet. Tax rates on the rich need to be raised both to combat inequality and reduce the deficit which has risen to almost $1 T under Trump and the Republican tax b ill.

I presume you are aware that you and/or W Buffet are perfectly FREE to write a check in any amount to the IRS for what you feel you feel is "your fair share", do you not??

"Actually, it's not OK to be rich --" If ever there was a "socialist" statement, this is it!!!!! Now if you had added the caveat that it's NOT OK for the rich to use their riches to control politicians, hence society, I would agree with you.

1) And exactly how is this tax supposed to "combat" inequality??????
2) Reducing the deficit will only be accomplished when DC starts spending less than it takes in! Adding tax revenue to reduce the deficit, is akin to pouring gasoline on a fire to put it out!!

 

[David Kent]

Actually, it's not OK to be rich. Inequality is killing the Middle Class. I agree with Warren Buffet. Tax rates on the rich need to be raised both to combat inequality and reduce the deficit which has risen to almost $1 T under Trump and the Republican tax b ill.

I thought USA was a classless society.

 

[church mouse guy]

I thought USA was a classless society.

The Dems want to be like the UK--a big mess with the rich on top living in palaces like Pelosi.

 

[FollowTheWay]

No, spending needs to be cut.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

That should have been considered before the Republican tax cut which raised the annual deficit to almost a trillion dollars. My then Rep. (voted out of office in the mid-term election) had a conference call first praising the tax cut and then supporting a balanced budget. As the CBO analysis showed the tax tax has raised our deficit to almost $1 T. That was the Republican plan. Raise the deficit to then argue for cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and Social security. That doesn't seem likely thank goodness.

 

[church mouse guy]

That should have been considered before the Republican tax cut which raised the annual deficit to almost a trillion dollars. My then Rep. (voted out of office in the mid-term election) had a conference call first praising the tax cut and then supporting a balanced budget. As the CBO analysis showed the tax tax has raised our deficit to almost $1 T. That was the Republican plan. Raise the deficit to then argue for cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and Social security. That doesn't seem likely thank goodness.

We need both a tax cut and a huge spending cut. We need another tax cut. Obama was the worst president ever in all regards.

 

[InTheLight]

That should have been considered before the Republican tax cut which raised the annual deficit to almost a trillion dollars.

My then Rep. (voted out of office in the mid-term election) had a conference call first praising the tax cut and then supporting a balanced budget. As the CBO analysis showed the tax tax has raised our deficit to almost $1 T.

"Almost a trillion dollars" in FollowTheWay's world = $779 billion

US budget deficit expands to $779 billion in fiscal 2018 as spending surges
America's budget deficit jumps by 17% as spending surges

 

[FollowTheWay]

"Almost a trillion dollars" in FollowTheWay's world = $779 billion

US budget deficit expands to $779 billion in fiscal 2018 as spending surges
America's budget deficit jumps by 17% as spending surges

Your article was written in Oct of 2018 and $779 B WAS the deficit for FY 2018. The deficit for 1Q19 was $317 B.
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=2019-01/54905-MBR.pdf

Do a little math and you'll see it is on track to be over $1 T for FY19.

Federal Deficit Climbs Again, Putting It on Track for $1 Trillion This Year

Federal Deficit Climbs Again, Putting It on Track for $1 Trillion This Year

Federal spending outpaced revenue by $317 billion over the first three months of fiscal 2019, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

 

[InTheLight]

Your article was written in Oct of 2018 and $779 B WAS the deficit for FY 2018. The deficit for 1Q19 was $317 B.
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=2019-01/54905-MBR.pdf

Do a little math and you'll see it is on track to be over $1 T for FY19.

Federal Deficit Climbs Again, Putting It on Track for $1 Trillion This Year

Federal Deficit Climbs Again, Putting It on Track for $1 Trillion This Year

Federal spending outpaced revenue by $317 billion over the first three months of fiscal 2019, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

You said, "the Republican tax cut which raised the annual deficit to almost a trillion dollars."

That is a statement of past tense. That is not a statement of a possible future, ala "on track".

Also the CBO has got to be the worst forecasting agency within government.

The first three months of fiscal 2019 was Oct-Jan. Let's see what happens in the next three quarters before we declare a $1 Trillion deficit, shall we?

 

[David Kent]

"That old grammar rule--'i' before 'e' except after 'c' has been disproven by science."

Only when it pronounced "ee" for example foreign "ei" is not pronouced "ee"

 

[Rolfe]

Actually, it's not OK to be rich.

 

[FollowTheWay]

You said, "the Republican tax cut which raised the annual deficit to almost a trillion dollars."

That is a statement of past tense. That is not a statement of a possible future, ala "on track".

Also the CBO has got to be the worst forecasting agency within government.

The first three months of fiscal 2019 was Oct-Jan. Let's see what happens in the next three quarters before we declare a $1 Trillion deficit, shall we?

Do you actually think the tax cut raised the deficit BEFORE IT WAS PASSED? I'm using the past tense based on our examination TODAY. Give it up.

 

[FollowTheWay]

I think Warren Buffet knows more about this than either one of us. He called for tax hikes on the rich to reduce the budget.

 

[InTheLight]

Do you actually think the tax cut raised the deficit BEFORE IT WAS PASSED? I'm using the past tense based on our examination TODAY. Give it up.

You can tap dance all you want but the fact is the deficit has not been raised to $1 trillion, as you asserted.

And, yes, the deficit was rising before the tax cuts were passed.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[FollowTheWay]

You can tap dance all you want but the fact is the deficit has not been raised to $1 trillion, as you asserted.

And, yes, the deficit was rising before the tax cuts were passed.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

The facts from FY 1Q19 indicates we are on a track to have a deficit of over $1 T. How's that?