A non-combative, serious question for the left.

[Too Tall]

Because they know that ‘spread the wealth’ is a myth. They know that nothing will be ‘taken away from them.’ And they know that their wealth and privilege is in no way threatened by Obama or the democrats.

They know that both the president and members of his party are avid supporters of the free market system and capitalism.

They’re also pragmatists, they understand that government can have a positive effect on those less fortunate and there are issues appropriate for the public sector alone to address.

Last, they’re advocates of protecting civil rights and individual liberties, so naturally they support the president and his party.

I know that is a pile of BS since I have heard Obama and his henchmen say they want to raise the taxes on high income people at least a hundred times.

by way of deleting some of their itemized deductions for that third house in the Hamptons.

A reform of the tax code would be a good thing, and that should be included. Obama and his ilk only talk about raising the tax rate on those making over $250,000 a year.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Maybe many in Hollywood are simply driven towards the Democrats by the non-stop demonization of them as the Hollyweirds by the rightwing propaganda machine for decade after decade.

Translated:

The right doesn't grovel at the feet of hollyweird looking for financial handouts like the left does.

I enjoy good movies but if an actor wants to insert himself into politics and pretend as if he/she is knowledgeable about it I stop watching their movies. Their platform is a mic, mine is my wallet.

 

[aaronleland]

I consider myself pretty moderate, which on this board would be considered Marxist/Socialist/Statist/Leftist/Whateverist, so I'll give my honest opinion. As others have said it isn't going to happen to any large degree anyways. Of course they can posture for better PR and some people will eat it up because they are idiots. For the actors/actresses it is somewhat believable. They have made easy money and may want to give something back. The Warren Buffetts and George Soros on the other hand have made their livings stepping on people below them. You don't gain that kind of wealth any other way nowadays. I would venture to guess that each of them has negatively effected more people than Mitt Romney. I just find it hard to believe that they really give a crap.

 

[Billo_Really]

Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, and Obama supporters, I need to hear your thoughts on this question. Information gathering here, I may ask follow-up questions but it is not my intention to argue.

Why is it that the hollywood elite, somebusinessmen like Warren Buffet, and other rich Americans throw their full support behind obama? Even when they know that "spread the wealth" means money being taken away from them? Why would these people want everyone to have the same stuff when it would mean that they themselves had no more than anyone else?

I ask because I'm cynical about their motives.

NOTE: Serious answers will be read and concidered, right wing bashing for it's own sake will be ignored.

Re-distribution of wealth does exist, but it's going up, not down!

 

[ClosedCaption]

Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, and Obama supporters, I need to hear your thoughts on this question. Information gathering here, I may ask follow-up questions but it is not my intention to argue.

Why is it that the hollywood elite, somebusinessmen like Warren Buffet, and other rich Americans throw their full support behind obama? Even when they know that "spread the wealth" means money being taken away from them? Why would these people want everyone to have the same stuff when it would mean that they themselves had no more than anyone else?

I ask because I'm cynical about their motives.

NOTE: Serious answers will be read and concidered, right wing bashing for it's own sake will be ignored.

Well since Dems hate rich people and these people are rich dems the (il)logical conclusion to the right is that the rich dems hate themselves and are cowards because they want to raise the taxes on themselves.

Now for my answer: They do it because unlike yourself they know more than bumper sticker talk of socialism coming to America. They do it because they know that the rich (themselves) dont pay enough in taxes. There is no need to call for a "fair tax" and saying its about fairness. If fairness was a concern the repubs wouldnt mock income inequality.

Your question is essentially: Why arent the rich that support Obama more selfish?

 

[Polk]

Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, and Obama supporters, I need to hear your thoughts on this question. Information gathering here, I may ask follow-up questions but it is not my intention to argue.

Why is it that the hollywood elite, somebusinessmen like Warren Buffet, and other rich Americans throw their full support behind obama? Even when they know that "spread the wealth" means money being taken away from them? Why would these people want everyone to have the same stuff when it would mean that they themselves had no more than anyone else?

I ask because I'm cynical about their motives.

NOTE: Serious answers will be read and concidered, right wing bashing for it's own sake will be ignored.

One could ask the same question about working class people voting to protect the interests of the wealthy. The answer to both questions are the same, from my prospective: people have core motivations that go beyond their material self-interest.

 

[Polk]

I mean, Obama himself is very wealthy, Sarah Jessica Parker is too, a local douchebag ambulance chaser who hosted Obama's visit to Orlando is very rich. Are these people willing, say if obama wins and coud get his way, to give away all their money and property so that the poor can have homes, three squares, cars, TVs, iPhones, etc.

Obama is relatively well-off today/will definitely be after he leaves office, but he didn't come in to politics with a wad of cash. He was still paying back student loans when he was in the Senate.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Very funny replies from the right ...

I would ask them the same question - Why are the wealthy (way beyond mere Hollywood standards!!) supporting the right?

Why would any AMERICAN support a party that invests their money - almost exclusively - outside their own country?

Anyway, we've had this "conversation" before and the rw's have consistently ignored the FACT that many Hollywood-ers also give hugely to the poor and to the environment. Meanwhile, Adleson, Kochs, Norquist, Rove and the other crooks, give only to those things which will make them richer.

Finally, this is STILL the United States. Whether its Sarah Jessica Parker or the Kochs, they do have the right to spend the money they earn (or inherit, in the case of the kochs, Trump, Mitt, etc etc etc) any way they wish.

You can take great comfort in knowing that there is so much more money coming from the corrupt right that Mitt should easily buy this election even without the blatant voter suppression you rw's are so in love with.

 

[PredFan]

Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, and Obama supporters, I need to hear your thoughts on this question. Information gathering here, I may ask follow-up questions but it is not my intention to argue.

Why is it that the hollywood elite, somebusinessmen like Warren Buffet, and other rich Americans throw their full support behind obama? Even when they know that "spread the wealth" means money being taken away from them? Why would these people want everyone to have the same stuff when it would mean that they themselves had no more than anyone else?

I ask because I'm cynical about their motives.

NOTE: Serious answers will be read and concidered, right wing bashing for it's own sake will be ignored.

Well since Dems hate rich people and these people are rich dems the (il)logical conclusion to the right is that the rich dems hate themselves and are cowards because they want to raise the taxes on themselves.

Now for my answer: They do it because unlike yourself they know more than bumper sticker talk of socialism coming to America. They do it because they know that the rich (themselves) dont pay enough in taxes. There is no need to call for a "fair tax" and saying its about fairness. If fairness was a concern the repubs wouldnt mock income inequality.

Your question is essentially: Why arent the rich that support Obama more selfish?

<dismissed>

 

[PredFan]

Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, and Obama supporters, I need to hear your thoughts on this question. Information gathering here, I may ask follow-up questions but it is not my intention to argue.

Why is it that the hollywood elite, somebusinessmen like Warren Buffet, and other rich Americans throw their full support behind obama? Even when they know that "spread the wealth" means money being taken away from them? Why would these people want everyone to have the same stuff when it would mean that they themselves had no more than anyone else?

I ask because I'm cynical about their motives.

NOTE: Serious answers will be read and concidered, right wing bashing for it's own sake will be ignored.

One could ask the same question about working class people voting to protect the interests of the wealthy. The answer to both questions are the same, from my prospective: people have core motivations that go beyond their material self-interest.

Feel free to start a thread about it.

 

[PredFan]

Very funny replies from the right ...

I would ask them the same question - Why are the wealthy (way beyond mere Hollywood standards!!) supporting the right?

Why would any AMERICAN support a party that invests their money - almost exclusively - outside their own country?

Anyway, we've had this "conversation" before and the rw's have consistently ignored the FACT that many Hollywood-ers also give hugely to the poor and to the environment. Meanwhile, Adleson, Kochs, Norquist, Rove and the other crooks, give only to those things which will make them richer.

Finally, this is STILL the United States. Whether its Sarah Jessica Parker or the Kochs, they do have the right to spend the money they earn (or inherit, in the case of the kochs, Trump, Mitt, etc etc etc) any way they wish.

You can take great comfort in knowing that there is so much more money coming from the corrupt right that Mitt should easily buy this election even without the blatant voter suppression you rw's are so in love with.

Feel free to start a thread about it. You want to answer my question or be ignored?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Polk

One could ask the same question about working class people voting to protect the interests of the wealthy. The answer to both questions are the same, from my prospective: people have core motivations that go beyond their material self-interest.

Okay, I can understand why someone would vote to make the earth a better place or vote for a president who is actually producing jobs but why would middle class, working schlubs vote for the party that fights against the US economy, against creating US jobs while creating jobs and companies outside the US?

Honestly, I don't get that.

Don't rw's have kids or parents or grand kids? Or are all of them multi-millionaires?

 

[PredFan]

Note to self:

There are a very few Obama supporters that are interested in doing anything other than bashing anyone who disagrees.

 

[PredFan]

Thanks to those who gave mature input.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I mean, Obama himself is very wealthy, Sarah Jessica Parker is too, a local douchebag ambulance chaser who hosted Obama's visit to Orlando is very rich. Are these people willing, say if obama wins and coud get his way, to give away all their money and property so that the poor can have homes, three squares, cars, TVs, iPhones, etc.

Obama is relatively well-off today/will definitely be after he leaves office, but he didn't come in to politics with a wad of cash. He was still paying back student loans when he was in the Senate.

Whereas, Etch A Sketch told students to just get the money from daddy.

Its nice that he's never had to worry about a pink slip (yeah, he lied about that too, right a long with lying about being "unemployed"), but those of us who live in the real world also have pay our own way.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Thanks to those who gave mature input.

Oh don't be such a sore loser.

Fact is, I make my case with every single post. All you would have to do is click on the links in my sig but rw's are scared to death to read FACTS.

 

[Peach]

How do you know they don't?

Buffett lives in a house he & his wife purchased for $30-40,000 + years ago. Still, no mansion. The Gates family gives, Gate's father fought against the end of the INHERITANCE tax; not all people are selfish, nor is 'giving' to the IRS as simple as some believe*. I personally know 2 people who said, and I paraphrase: "I didn't need an income tax cut, the country needs better schools/the county needs better roads". What is strange about not begrudging money to this nation, while supporting wars like Iraq, where Americans are maimed and die?

*An individual I know miscalculated, over paid, and the IRS sent her a check back, promptly.

The vast majority of Buffet's current income is from capital gains so raising the ncome tax rate would not affect his income in the least.

If Buffet is such a big government man, why didn't he give his fortune to the government?

What is "The Giving Pledge"?

It's an idea that was hatched by Microsoft founder Bill Gates and Berkshire Hathaway founder Warren Buffett over lunch at an Omaha diner. Buffett has already annouced that he will donate 99 percent of his $47 billion fortune to charity, with the bulk designated for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, an organization Gates and his wife established to fight global poverty and disease.

The Gates Foundation also has provided computers for schools, libraries, fire departments, and police in poor areas of the US. My town received at least 20. "giving' to the government includes the defense industry, and all other programs. Those who favor starvation among poor Americans would never do so; I would never contribute to the defense industry, my money goes straight to active duty military* & Vets, along with the poor.


*At LEAST 50 of the packages collected for those in Iraq & Afghanistan, when troop levels were higher, the same type of items, plus both sugar free, and regular, candy, pies, cakes, and other treats-to a Veterans domiciliary home, and hospital in my area.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

If Buffet is such a big government man, why didn't he give his fortune to the government?

Actually, Buffet, Gates, Bloomberg and many other (m)(b)trillionaires give away a lot of their money.

Among the least charitable is Trump but, hey, his daddy left it to him and he can do with it as he wishes.

 

[Polk]

Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, and Obama supporters, I need to hear your thoughts on this question. Information gathering here, I may ask follow-up questions but it is not my intention to argue.

Why is it that the hollywood elite, somebusinessmen like Warren Buffet, and other rich Americans throw their full support behind obama? Even when they know that "spread the wealth" means money being taken away from them? Why would these people want everyone to have the same stuff when it would mean that they themselves had no more than anyone else?

I ask because I'm cynical about their motives.

NOTE: Serious answers will be read and concidered, right wing bashing for it's own sake will be ignored.

One could ask the same question about working class people voting to protect the interests of the wealthy. The answer to both questions are the same, from my prospective: people have core motivations that go beyond their material self-interest.

Feel free to start a thread about it.

I'm answering the question you asked. Economic issues aren't the only ones in the world and they're far less important to upper income voters. Those voters are going to place a higher value on social issues and foreign policy. If they have left-wing views on those issues, they'll vote for liberal candidates, even though it may cause some harm to their bottom line. It's also possible they are also liberals on economic issues, placing a higher value on fairness and equality than pursuit of wealth at all costs.

 

[PredFan]

One could ask the same question about working class people voting to protect the interests of the wealthy. The answer to both questions are the same, from my prospective: people have core motivations that go beyond their material self-interest.

Feel free to start a thread about it.

I'm answering the question you asked. Economic issues aren't the only ones in the world and they're far less important to upper income voters. Those voters are going to place a higher value on social issues and foreign policy. If they have left-wing views on those issues, they'll vote for liberal candidates, even though it may cause some harm to their bottom line. It's also possible they are also liberals on economic issues, placing a higher value on fairness and equality than pursuit of wealth at all costs.

Yes, you did answer the question. My response was to your statement about asking the same question about the GOP.