OK, I'm all ears.

[freeandfun1]

evil. I have quite a few acquaintances who qualify as rich, and none of them is evil. Some of them are lazy, though--the conservative pitch that "we're just giving money to the people who create jobs for the rest of us" doesn't always apply. Many a rich person spends days by the pool at the health club and contributes zilch to society beyond buying luxury goods. Their lifestyle is only made possible by all the rest of us working, and if you look back in many of their histories just a generation or two, you'll often find that they wouldn't be where they are now if some kin hadn't benefited from a gov't social program, e.g. the G.I. bill, a depression-era anti-poverty program, an 18th century gov't land giveaway ("40 acres and a mule") or a mid-centure tariff (work for General Motors and make enough to support your family--but only because of unionization and tariffs that kept out cheaper cars from abroad).

Besides, you guys don't have good answers for a bunch of challenging questions. E.g. 1/6 of all American kids are growing up in poverty right now, or that if you earn minimum wage you can't actually feed and house yourself in many localities. What would you have such people do? If you enact a flatter tax or a consumption tax, you increase that number. You also ignore the fact that the economic booms of the 80s and 90s followed small tax increases, not cuts. The rich don't take care of the poor all by themselves. That's why gov't has to step in. I don't think Bush is going to have any luck making major changes in the tax code. I'd be happy with some simplification, but I don't think you can undo redistributive taxation.

Mariner.

See, you only know liberal rich people. and yes, they are lazy. most of us that own businesses and whom are the ones employing people, don't have time to lay by the pool all day, play golf etc. because we are working hard to KEEP our money. Your rich friends didn't work to get their money, most likely, they inherited it and they don't know what it is like to work to build something and then keep it.

I'm tired of your tired ass shit. why don't you just go fuck yourself you little twerp.

 

[Mariner]

my freedom to have fun.

That's pretty interesting to characterize the lazy rich as liberals and the hard-working rich as conservatives. Sorry, it ain't true. The Republicans' support base is far wealthier than the Democrats'. Someone here called it a "billionaires' club." Of course they want to see their taxes go down, so they can buy more toys. This is the yellow underbelly of wealth that you guys don't want to look at, for some reason. You know, poor people give larger percentages of their income to charity than wealthy ones, even with the tax deductions currently in place? Why? Because poor people know hardship first hand while many wealthy people prefer to ignore it, hiding in their gated communities and private planes.

By the way, I know both conservative and liberal rich. The sickest, greediest rich person I ever met in my life was the owner of a major national food chain, who was a rabid Republican, spent his entire life at the country club with his gold Rolls Royce and his trophy wife, and could think of nothing else but union-busting, tax evasion, and putting down the "lazy poor." The janitor at my hospital works harder than this man, who inherited his business and never worked a day in his life. That's the kind of person Bush thinks America needs more of, via ending taxation on wealth and increasing it on income.

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

my freedom to have fun.

That's pretty interesting to characterize the lazy rich as liberals and the hard-working rich as conservatives. Sorry, it ain't true. The Republicans' support base is far wealthier than the Democrats'. Someone here called it a "billionaires' club." Of course they want to see their taxes go down, so they can buy more toys. This is the yellow underbelly of wealth that you guys don't want to look at, for some reason. You know, poor people give larger percentages of their income to charity than wealthy ones, even with the tax deductions currently in place? Why? Because poor people know hardship first hand while many wealthy people prefer to ignore it, hiding in their gated communities and private planes.

By the way, I know both conservative and liberal rich. The sickest, greediest rich person I ever met in my life was the owner of a major national food chain, who was a rabid Republican, spent his entire life at the country club with his gold Rolls Royce and his trophy wife, and could think of nothing else but union-busting, tax evasion, and putting down the "lazy poor." The janitor at my hospital works harder than this man, who inherited his business and never worked a day in his life. That's the kind of person Bush thinks America needs more of, via ending taxation on wealth and increasing it on income.

Mariner.

Watch us end it.

You're such a commie.

 

[freeandfun1]

I can point out just as many, if not more rich liberals that fall into the category of lazy and sucking of an inheritence.

I am tired of you libs lumping all "rich" into the same bag. Am I rich? By the standards of most, yes. But I worked my ass off for it. I grew up poor and I made something of myself. Why should I have to support some lazy ass fuck that won't get off his ass and get a job?

I spent 8 years as an enlisted man in the Army, then I went to work for minimum wage washing U-Haul trucks while I went to college. I paid for college out of my own damn pocket. Not ONE fucking dime of government assistance.

I make about $250K a year, but that is because I WORK for it. I know guys that make a helluvalot more than me and THEY work for it. They are not some Heinz or Kerry that inherited all their wealth and then try to tell us how we need to pay more in taxes because we are "rich".

You have no clue and you have gotten on my nerves so much I have no use for you. You cannot have an honest debate cuz you mix facts and figures to try and support your position. Walk in my shoes and then open your big fucking mouth.

 

[CSM]

...
Besides, you guys don't have good answers for a bunch of challenging questions. E.g. 1/6 of all American kids are growing up in poverty right now...
Mariner.

The Census Bureau statistics do not bear out your assertion that 1 in 6 children live in poverty...

The OVERALL poverty rate in the US is between 7% and 10% according to them. The population of the US is close to 300 mil. I'll let somebody else do the math, but the end result is that the number of children living in poverty in the US is some thing less than that you portray. I dont doubt that between 1 and 6 or even 1 in 4 children throughout the world live in poverty, however.

 

[Huckleburry]

Ultimately the political alliances of the wealthy elite matter very little to a discussion of the national economy. So too do the particular attitudes of this group. Liberal, or conservative, entrepreneurial or lazy as fuck, these are details that have little relevance to the debate. In discussing national economic policy we must focus instead on the factors that have a real impact on the economy as a whole. To this end, identifying who and what causes the economy to grow is of paramount importance. Consumer spending in 2004 accounted for seventy percent of GDP. Thus it would seem that we have at least identified the "what" part of the equation. Consumers are clearly the fuel of the national economic machine. Of course not all consumers are created equal, some spend/save more than others and they spend on different things. The "who" part of the debate then becomes far more interesting. The marginal propensity to consume, that is the proportion of additional income that individuals spend when they experience a rise in income, is higher at lower levels of income. This is to say that when incomes rise the poor will spend proportionally more than the rich. This being true it is logical that a policy which aims to inspire economic growth would focus on the lower income households, rather than the high income households. It is on this point that I take issue with the president’s tax cuts. I hate taxes and agree that they should be lowered. The question, however, is lowered for whom. If our aim is to grow the economy than shouldn’t we aim our tax cuts at those groups who are going to spend the majority of their extra income? Shouldn’t we put money in the pockets of those people who are going to increase overall demand and in turn stimulate growth? True the Presidents tax cuts have had a positive effect on the economy; however, in targeting the wealthiest five percent of Americans the president has limited the marginal benefit of the tax cut dollars. This is to say that the same quantity of dollars, when distributed to the middle and lower income groups would produce a greater quantity of demand then when they are placed in the select hands of the top five percent. Those arguing that a lowering of the capital gains tax encourages investment, I can only reply, invest in what? Firms are dependent upon demand not the inverse. If consumer spending is poor than firms have no incentive to expand, if firms are not expanding than they have little need to issue new stock or bonds, the market does not expand, and capital markets begin to stagnate.
2004 was a blockbuster year for both the national and world economies. The world economy grew faster than it has in the past two decades as a direct result of robust consumer spending in the United States. Nationally, the unusually low interest rates made people's housing an unexpected and readily available source of wealth. Importantly though, it was the middle to lower middle class that spearheaded the economic recovery, not the wealthy. In my view our tax code should reflect the importance of these groups. Should we cut taxes? Absolutely! But we should cut them among the middle and lower classes rather than the wealthy elite, because in the ultimate analysis the guy sipping martini’s by the pool has little effect on the national economy, irregardless of his political ideology.

 

[drowe]

That's pretty interesting to characterize the lazy rich as liberals and the hard-working rich as conservatives. Sorry, it ain't true. The Republicans' support base is far wealthier than the Democrats'. Someone here called it a "billionaires' club." Of course they want to see their taxes go down, so they can buy more toys. This is the yellow underbelly of wealth that you guys don't want to look at, for some reason. You know, poor people give larger percentages of their income to charity than wealthy ones, even with the tax deductions currently in place? Why? Because poor people know hardship first hand while many wealthy people prefer to ignore it, hiding in their gated communities and private planes.

By the way, I know both conservative and liberal rich. The sickest, greediest rich person I ever met in my life was the owner of a major national food chain, who was a rabid Republican, spent his entire life at the country club with his gold Rolls Royce and his trophy wife, and could think of nothing else but union-busting, tax evasion, and putting down the "lazy poor." The janitor at my hospital works harder than this man, who inherited his business and never worked a day in his life. That's the kind of person Bush thinks America needs more of, via ending taxation on wealth and increasing it on income.

Mariner.

That whole post is just opinion or your perception of people. Except for:

The Republicans' support base is far wealthier than the Democrats'.

Look at this: http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527cmtes.asp?level=C&cycle=2004

Did you see the difference in total dollars raised by Democratic contributors vs. Republicans?

You are entitled to your own opinion Mariner and you can babble on all you want too, that is your right. But don't try to pass off your opinions as facts it will just be interpreted as ignorance by a lot of people here.

 

[Mariner]

I never said that Republicans raised more money than Democrats. I said that Republicans include more wealthy people than Democrats (fact), and suggested that the reason some of these people are Republicans is because their primary concern is getting their own taxes reduced (opinion). Many of them couldn't care less about the pro-gun, pro-life, conservative value wing of their party (opinion).

Mariner.

 

[MtnBiker]

A Billion Reasons to Raise Your Taxes
Fat cats like Kerry want you to pay.



Did you ever wonder why George Soros (the billionaire who is doing all he can to defeat George Bush), Warren Buffett (the billionaire from Omaha who continues to argue for the repeal of tax cuts), John Kerry (the candidate for president who married into the billion-dollar Heinz fortune), and innumerable wealthy Hollywood celebrities all support the Democratic party — hook, line, and sinker? It doesn't seem to make sense. Why would these patricians favor the party that wants to increase tax rates (as Kerry would do by repealing the Bush tax cuts)? Here's one explanation.

They may act like philanthropists, but in actuality these Democrats are fat cats who can either avoid taxes entirely or pay just a minimal amount. They surely don't pay their fair share relative to their wealth. These megabuck corporate elites take minimal salaries and then benefit from tax-sheltered windfalls when their company stock prices go up. In addition they create huge foundations that provide tax deductions which can offset much of their taxable income. Ongoing contributions to these foundations can materially reduce income taxes for an indefinite period of time. So the guys at the top — whether they are billionaires by inheritance, luck, or hard work — have amassed enormous fortunes that grow, and at the same time they use their assets to keep their income taxes low. Legions of tax accountants and lawyers make sure they take advantage of every tax loophole.

On the other hand, the few who get paid enormous salaries, like Richard Grasso, ex-head of the New York Stock Exchange, are beaten up in the press for being greedy. After federal, state, and local taxes, Grasso will keep about half of his much-discussed $140 million bonus. The government will take the other half. But that doesn't satisfy the Democrats. They want even more. If the estate-tax elimination is blocked from becoming permanent, as Democrats hope, the federal government will take another half (or more) of Grasso's money when he dies. To me, taking 75 percent of someone's earned income sounds a lot more like confiscation than taxation.

Here's the game the Democrats are playing: To avoid increasing taxes on their big-time constituents they are advocating higher income taxes on working Americans. And with the money they raise by taxing hard-earned dollars they plan to either shrink the budget deficit or fund their pet spending projects.

The reality is, higher income-tax rates discourage work and lower standards of living; they dishearten the entrepreneurs in our society who are trying to improve their own standards of living and the situations of their families. Bush understands this. Rather than rewarding the rich, his tax-rate cuts increase the reward for work.

This is not a partisan issue; it is economic reality. President Kennedy, a Democrat, cut the highest marginal tax rate from 92 percent to 70 percent. He said that cutting tax rates raised all boats — inferring that a reduction in tax rates helps everybody. The stock market boomed as a result. In 1969, Nixon, a Republican, pushed marginal tax rates back up to 77 percent with his so-called income-tax surcharge. After peaking in 1969, the stock market was cut in half within five years. (Today, the Republican party still counts a few Nixonian tax increasers among its members. Fortunately they are in the minority.)

Entrepreneurs who form their own companies have to pay both payroll and income taxes. That's a big cost for newly formed companies as the taxes come right off the top (whether or not there is net income). If the Democrats have their way, the marginal tax rate on many tax-paying Americans could be back over 50 percent next year. Will this help the economy? Will such a tax increase create or destroy jobs? Does voting America really want to find out?

Link

 

[drowe]

Actually you said

The Republicans' support base is far wealthier than the Democrats'.

I think of 527s as a support base.

...I said that Republicans include more wealthy people than Democrats (fact)...

Can you please tell me what you are basing this claim on? I'd really like to see it.

 

[Mariner]

I apologize if my phrase "support base" was unclear. I meant the socioeconomic level of individual contributors, and I thought it was common knowledge that the ultrawealthy went overwhelmingly for Bush. When I get a chance (I gotta get to bed here) I'll try to look for some numbers to back up my contention.

In the meantime, I am curious to ask you the opposite side of the opinion piece's point--does a rising tide really lift all boats? Even if all are lifted, does it perhaps lift some so much more than others that it might destroy the concept of a middle class? I read a review of Daniel Altman's new book today ("Neoconomics"). Apparently, even as a believer in flatter taxation, he predicts a type of feudalism resulting--we will create so many ultra rich people that a tiered, class society could result. Already, the bulk of American assets is in the hands of very few, and Bush's policy direction will increase that divide. (Of course, increased unionization and labor activism should arise at some point to oppose this trend, so maybe I shouldn't worry so much--but in the meantime it's a lot of people without health insurance.)

Re: Soros and Buffett-- I believe that they see that preserving a level playing field is more important than flattening taxation excessively. And re: the 80s and 90s economic booms, I've seen the opposite argument made--that it was slight increases in taxation (1986, when Reagan raised taxes in order to quell the disastrous deficits he was creating, and ~1991, when Bush broke his "read my lips" pledge) that created the booms by placing the federal gov't on a solid footing and therefore increasing investor and market confidence. Notice that the stock market hasn't moved during Bush's tenure, despite the lowered taxes on the wealthy.

I agree with you that 92% marginal tax rates were ridiculous. But the tax on wealth (unearned income) now is 10% Is that unreasonable?

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

If all ships are raised above poverty, isn't it worth it? People having the same amount relative to each other is not a priority if everyone has food and clothes.

 

[freeandfun1]

But the tax on wealth (unearned income) now is 10% Is that unreasonable?

Mariner.

ahem..... BULLSHIT. once again you prove your ignorance.

Are you saying that those Americans that earn the least shouldn't have to pay the least? The 10% capital gains bracket only applies to those in the lowest tax brackets.

And as for YOUR theory that the super-rich support Bush, read this article from SLATE.

Millionaires for Bush, Billionaires for Kerry

While the haves will surely give Bush a majority of their votes this fall, the have-mores might not. In September, the research firm Prince & Associates surveyed 400 people worth more than $1 million for Elite Traveler magazine. (Note to self: Try to get gig writing for this magazine.) The rich folk favored Bush by a 58-42 margin. Not too surprising. But when you break out the numbers, they tell a different story. The petit bourgeoisie millionaires were passionately for Bush: Those worth between $1 million and $10 million favored Bush by a 63-37 margin. But the haute millionaires, those worth more than $10 million, favored Kerry 59-41.

As for your claims about capital gains, sure you can pay as low as 5% in capital gains. But to do that, you must fall into the lowest tax bracket of 10 or 15%.

Why don't you understand what you write before your write it? Or are you purposely trying to mislead? I know that is a tactic of the left and you seem to have it down pat.

SmartMoney.com

CONTRARY TO POPULAR OPINION, not all of your capital gains are taxed at 15%. No, that would be far too simple. (And the IRS seems to really enjoy giving us a mental workout when it comes to filing our taxes.) So in addition to the 15% rate, there are several additional long-term capital-gains rates, which can range from 0% to 28%. Which category your sale will fall into depends on your income-tax bracket, the type of asset you sold, how long you held it and when you sold it. Keep in mind, short-term gains (on assets held for one year or less) are taxed at your ordinary income rate, which ranges from 10% to 35%.

Here's the breakdown of the long-term rates.

Investment Securities

The New 5% Rate
Who's Eligible: For sales after May 5, 2003, individuals in the 10% and 15% federal income tax brackets with net long-term capital gains from selling investment securities held for more than one year.

More people than you might think qualify for the new 5% rate. Why? Because the 15% bracket covers 2003 taxable income of up to $28,400 for singles, $56,800 for joint filers, $38,050 for heads of households, and $28,400 for married individuals who file separately. Here's how this rule works in real life. Say you're a joint filer and have $50,000 of "regular" taxable income in 2003 and a net long-term gain of $10,000 from stock sales that occur after May 5, 2003. The first $6,800 of gain ($56,800 - $50,000) will be taxed at only 5%. The remaining $3,200 ($10,000-$6,800) will get taxed at the 15% rate you hear so much about. Now let's say your net long-term gain is $6,800 or less. In this case, you'll pay only 5% on the entire gain. You get the idea. (For sales before May 6, 2003, you pay 10% on net long-term capital gains that would otherwise fall within the 10% or 15% bracket.)

The 8% Rate
Who's Eligible: Investors in the 10% or 15% income-tax bracket who held a security for more than five years and sold before May 6, 2003.

The 10% Rate
Who's Eligible: Folks in the 10% or 15% income-tax bracket who held an investment for more than one year and sold before May 6, 2003.

The 15% Rate
Who's Eligible: For sales after May 5, 2003, individuals in the 25% federal income tax bracket or higher with net long-term capital gains from selling investment securities held for more than one year. (For sales before May 6, 2003, you pay 20% on net long-term capital gains that would otherwise fall within the 25% or higher bracket.)

The 20% Rate
Who's Eligible: Anyone in the 25% income-tax bracket or higher who held a security for more than one year and sold before May 6, 2003.

Real Estate (Owned as an Investment)

The 25% Rate
Who's Eligible: Property owners and real estate investment trust (REIT) investors in the 25% income-tax bracket or higher who hold property for more than one year.

Investment real-estate gains are tricky since they can be taxed in two different ways. If you claim depreciation deductions, at least some of those gains (so-called unrecaptured Section 1250 gains) are taxed at a maximum rate of 25%.

For example, say you own a rental duplex and have deducted $32,000 of depreciation over the years. That depreciation reduces your basis in the property and results in a bigger taxable gain (or smaller loss) when you sell. Now you sell after May 5, 2003 for a $100,000 gain. The first $32,000 (the unrecaptured Section 1250 gain) is taxed at a maximum rate of 25%. The remaining $68,000 of gain is taxed at the "general rule" maximum rate of 15%.

If you own shares in a REIT, you can receive capital-gains distributions subject to the 25% maximum rate. This happens when the REIT sells a piece of depreciable property and distributes the profit to its shareholders.

To the extent an unrecaptured Section 1250 gain falls into the 10% or 15% bracket, it gets taxed at that rate.

Collectibles and Small-Business Stock

The 28% Rate
Who's Eligible: Any collector in the 28% tax bracket or higher; some small-business stock shareholders.

Net long-term gains from collectibles (stamps, coins, baseball cards, Beanie Babies and the like) are subject to a 28% maximum rate rather than the usual 15%. This is one reason stocks are a much better investment than Beanie Babies.

To the extent a long-term collectibles gain falls into the 10% or 15% bracket, it's taxed at that rate.

The 28% maximum rate also applies to the taxable part of a gain from selling certain small-business stock that qualifies for a special 50% gain exclusion rule (under the tax code). Basically, these are shares in relatively small corporations that were originally issued to you and that you've owned more than five years. Consult your tax adviser if you think you have any shares fitting this description.

Homes and Small-Business Stock

The 0% Rate
Who's Eligible: Homeowners who owned and used their home as a main residence for at least two years before selling; some shareholders of small-business stock.

Believe it or not there are a couple of ways you can lock in a gain without paying Uncle Sam a dime. The first is if you sell a home you've owned and used as your main residence for at least two years out of the five-year period ending on the sale date. You are allowed to exclude (pay zero federal tax on) up to $250,000 of gain. If you are married, you can potentially exclude up to $500,000.

Even if you don't meet the two-out-of-five-years rule, you may still qualify for a reduced gain exclusion privilege. Our Home Sale Tax Estimator will help you figure this out. If your gain from a sale after May 5, 2003 exceeds the amount you can exclude, the difference is treated as a long-term capital gain eligible for the 15% maximum rate (or 5% or 10% if your taxable income is low enough).

As mentioned, up to 50% of the gain from selling certain small-business stock can be excluded from your federal tax return. Again, consult a tax pro if you think you might qualify for this break. (Relatively few people do, but you could be one of the lucky ones.)

 

[Mariner]

You misunderstood my 10% figure. That is the current combined tax rate on unearned not earned income. In other words, it's what the country club set pays on its stocks, bonds, and other assets. I'm quoting that figure from the New York Times, but I'm not enough of a tax accountant to be able to break it up further, i.e. to explain what part of it is from the inheritance tax, what part from taxes on stocks, etc. Bush's plan, and the reason he is supported by so many wealthy people, is to further reduce this 10% figure. Since someone has to pay taxes, that necessarily shifts the burden to those of us who work, i.e. taxes on income.

Re: do wealthy people support Republicans--I'm going to do a good web search when I get a chance, but in the meantime I came across this quote in an article in the New Yorker on George Soros. If Republicans vilify Soros for being a liberal who is putting his money into politics, they do so hypocritically:

"The astonishing amount of cash that Soros has poured into the presidential race is nonetheless dwarfed by Republican efforts to influence public policy through private donation... since the 1970's , wealthy conservative backers have poured between two and a half and three billion dollars into financing a war of ideas to tilt mainstream American thinking rightward... Stein identified nine hugely wealthy families who had anchored the effort, all of whom were sustained by corporate forturenes [this list of course includes the Mellon-Scaife]... Between 1985 and 2001 the nine families had collectively given half a billion collars to charitable foundations pormoting policies that were in their immediate self-interest, such as lowering income taxes and deregulating industry."

Personally, I deplore the influence of cash on our gov't, liberal or conservative. but let's face the fact that conservatives have the edge.

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You misunderstood my 10% figure. That is the current combined tax rate on unearned not earned income. In other words, it's what the country club set pays on its stocks, bonds, and other assets. I'm quoting that figure from the New York Times, but I'm not enough of a tax accountant to be able to break it up further, i.e. to explain what part of it is from the inheritance tax, what part from taxes on stocks, etc. Bush's plan, and the reason he is supported by so many wealthy people, is to further reduce this 10% figure. Since someone has to pay taxes, that necessarily shifts the burden to those of us who work, i.e. taxes on income.

Re: do wealthy people support Republicans--I'm going to do a good web search when I get a chance, but in the meantime I came across this quote in an article in the New Yorker on George Soros. If Republicans vilify Soros for being a liberal who is putting his money into politics, they do so hypocritically:

"The astonishing amount of cash that Soros has poured into the presidential race is nonetheless dwarfed by Republican efforts to influence public policy through private donation... since the 1970's , wealthy conservative backers have poured between two and a half and three billion dollars into financing a war of ideas to tilt mainstream American thinking rightward... Stein identified nine hugely wealthy families who had anchored the effort, all of whom were sustained by corporate forturenes [this list of course includes the Mellon-Scaife]... Between 1985 and 2001 the nine families had collectively given half a billion collars to charitable foundations pormoting policies that were in their immediate self-interest, such as lowering income taxes and deregulating industry."

Personally, I deplore the influence of cash on our gov't, liberal or conservative. but let's face the fact that conservatives have the edge.

Mariner.

Nonetheless, Democratic supporter vastly outspent republican supporters on propaganda and 527's.

 

[freeandfun1]

Nonetheless, Democratic supporter vastly outspent republican supporters on propaganda and 527's.

nonethelss, I posted the facts on the tax code and he ignores them and goes off into some rant about how his info comes from the NY Times.... oh, I guess they replaced the IRS?

 

[Mariner]

Right Wing. I though that Bush had raised and spent around $200 million and that Kerry spent at least $50 million less... ? The Republican Convention was scheduled purposefully late, I thought, in order to let Bush collect more money before becoming the official candidate... ?

Mariner

 

[drowe]

Right Wing. I though that Bush had raised and spent around $200 million and that Kerry spent at least $50 million less... ? The Republican Convention was scheduled purposefully late, I thought, in order to let Bush collect more money before becoming the official candidate... ?

Mariner

???

"The astonishing amount of cash that Soros has poured into the presidential race is nonetheless dwarfed by Republican efforts to influence public policy through private donation... since the 1970's , wealthy conservative backers have poured between two and a half and three billion dollars into financing a war of ideas to tilt mainstream American thinking rightward... Stein identified nine hugely wealthy families who had anchored the effort, all of whom were sustained by corporate forturenes [this list of course includes the Mellon-Scaife]... Between 1985 and 2001 the nine families had collectively given half a billion collars to charitable foundations pormoting policies that were in their immediate self-interest, such as lowering income taxes and deregulating industry."

Mariner-

Please, where do you get this information? If it is indeed from the NYT then I cannot trust it as a reliable source, perhaps recreational reading.

-I hope everyones Thanksgiving was nice!-

 

[Mariner]

The total spending figures for Bush v. Kerry were all over the news--Bush had a larger total budget by far. Am I mistaken?

The information about the extraordinary amount of money that conservative ultra-wealthy people have spent in search of tax breaks and legislation that benefits them directly came from a New Yorker piece, but the reference is from simple tax audits that are supposedly readily available.

You guys use the phrase "drinking the Kool-Aid" a lot around here. Is it possible that some of your beliefs might be the Kool-Aid of billionaires, who might be more interested in keeping the money they inherited (much of it earned on the backs of workers in the days before labor laws) than they are in the conservative social agenda? 2.5-3 billion dollars is not small change--that's a vast investment, by people whose business is investment--so presumably they're getting something in return for it.

Anyway, no matter how you interpret it, it has to put Soros' spending in perspective.

Mariner.

 

[eric]

It is not how much you spend, but rather what you spend it on !!