NationStates Jolt Archive

From the Center for Responsive Politics;

Those giving $200 to $999: GOP $68 million; Democrats $44 million.

Those giving $1,000 to $9,999: GOP $317 million; Democrats $307 million.

The "fabulously wealthy" donors of $10,000+ gave $111 million to the GOP – a whopping $29 million less than the $140 million they lavished on the Democrats!

Among those who gave $100,000+, the Democrats raised $72 million – more than double the $34 million the GOP took.

So what is it, rich people are suddenly more altrustic than liberals ever gave them credit for, or the liberals have been pulling the wool over the eyes of their base making them think they are all about the 'little guy' while pandering to their rich donors.

Can't have it both ways! :)

Link.

Maybe the rich people are smart (how do you think they got the money, they know mostly what they're doing) and gave to the right party...(I may get some flak but whatever.)

From the Center for Responsive Politics;

Those giving $200 to $999: GOP $68 million; Democrats $44 million.

Those giving $1,000 to $9,999: GOP $317 million; Democrats $307 million.

The "fabulously wealthy" donors of $10,000+ gave $111 million to the GOP – a whopping $29 million less than the $140 million they lavished on the Democrats!

Among those who gave $100,000+, the Democrats raised $72 million – more than double the $34 million the GOP took.

So what is it, rich people are suddenly more altrustic than liberals ever gave them credit for, or the liberals have been pulling the wool over the eyes of their base making them think they are all about the 'little guy' while pandering to their rich donors.

Can't have it both ways! :)
Imagine that...

Link.

http://google.com

http://yahoo.com

It's the INTERNET for chrissakes.

This is completely relevant. :rolleyes:

Maybe the rich people are smart (how do you think they got the money, they know mostly what they're doing) and gave to the right party...(I may get some flak but whatever.)
MMMMm maybe. I suppose that whole 'massive tax-cuts for the rich friends of Bush' is sorta just a bunch of bunk then...

Since Harry Truman, the Democrats have not been for the "little" guy. They want people to think they are, but all they want to do is control the "little" people while pandering to the rich.

http://google.com

http://yahoo.com

It's the INTERNET for chrissakes.
lol :p

http://google.com

http://yahoo.com

It's the INTERNET for chrissakes.

The burden of proof is on you, monsieur. Your entire argument is false; you made the numbers up yourself. Prove me wrong.

I see B0zzy is in charge of the ministry of propaganda, soon he will be threatening us with shoes.

Which party provides more monetary benefits in the form of tax breaks to the wealthy?

Well, here's the site of the organization the numbers are from, I didn't feel like searching the site, as I am not the one making the assertion. I'll just say there's lot's of numbers on the site :eek:

edit:
www.opensecrets.org

sorry I forgot to post the link...I'm absentminded like that

Which party provides more monetary benefits in the form of tax breaks to the wealthy?
Everyone gets tax breaks, the wealthy just get more because they pay more.

Well, here's the site of the organization the numbers are from, I didn't feel like searching the site, as I am not the one making the assertion. I'll just say there's lot's of numbers on the site :eek:

Yeah, I've been cruising the site since I asked for a link. I haven't found the numbers he's championing yet. Found some interesting stuff on how business and labor donates, though.

The burden of proof is on you, monsieur. Your entire argument is false; you made the numbers up yourself. Prove me wrong.
I gave my source - all that I need. If you want to check it be my guest, but don't expect me to do your work for you - even though that IS the liberal way of thinking.

Meh. It's common knowledge rich people vote Republican, and poor people vote Democrat.

In fact, I think I'll actually provide a link.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

63% of those making under $15,000 a year voted for Kerry. 63% of those making over $200,000 voted for Bush.

I gave my source - all that I need. If you want to check it be my guest, but don't expect me to do your work for you - even though that IS the liberal way of thinking.
I wasn't aware referencing search engines without parameters amounted to any more than egotism. Would you like a goat to placate your trolling tendencies?

I gave my source - all that I need. If you want to check it be my guest, but don't expect me to do your work for you - even though that IS the liberal way of thinking.

So what you're saying is that you're unwilling to back up your claims with something that we can all look at. Awesome.

Here, however, is an amusing chart I dug up while trying to find Bozzy's phantom numbers.

http://www.crp.org/overview/topindivs.asp?cycle=2004

So what you're saying is that you're unwilling to back up your claims with something that we can all look at. Awesome.

Here, however, is an amusing chart I dug up while trying to find Bozzy's phantom numbers.

http://www.crp.org/overview/topindivs.asp?cycle=2004


really cool site, though to be fair, if you check out the top donors to 527's, the top 4 gave $70 million+ to liberal causes:

http://www.crp.org/527s/527indivs.asp?cycle=2004

From the Center for Responsive Politics;

Those giving $200 to $999: GOP $68 million; Democrats $44 million.

Those giving $1,000 to $9,999: GOP $317 million; Democrats $307 million.

The "fabulously wealthy" donors of $10,000+ gave $111 million to the GOP – a whopping $29 million less than the $140 million they lavished on the Democrats!

Among those who gave $100,000+, the Democrats raised $72 million – more than double the $34 million the GOP took.

So what is it, rich people are suddenly more altrustic than liberals ever gave them credit for, or the liberals have been pulling the wool over the eyes of their base making them think they are all about the 'little guy' while pandering to their rich donors.

Can't have it both ways! :)
:D Good post! Yeah, both party's sucked corporate dick recently, and always are willing to do so again.

Why should I post the data when NOT posting it seems to be producing much more intelligent discourse and additional info?

For those who must know - the data was not from the 2004 cycle. It was a bit easier to track before 527s. I'll post a link to the info later, but for now I am enjoying the high level of (mostly) intelligent contributions here.

While I'm at it, 55% of those making less than $50,000 a year voted for Kerry, while 56% of those making more than $50,000 a year voted for Bush.

Source (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html)

really cool site, though to be fair, if you check out the top donors to 527's, the top 4 gave $70 million+ to liberal causes:

http://www.crp.org/527s/527indivs.asp?cycle=2004


but if you add up all of these:
http://www.crp.org/overview/topindivs.asp?cycle=2004

They do not even total as much as the first of these:

http://www.crp.org/527s/527indivs.asp?cycle=2004 - Soros

While I'm at it, 55% of those making less than $50,000 a year voted for Kerry, while 56% of those making more than $50,000 a year voted for Bush.

Source (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html)
Who cares? Some of us making over 50k/yr didn't vote for Bush. Or Kerry.

Money doesn't necessarily make you stupid.

Who cares? Some of us making over 50k/yr didn't vote for Bush.

Money doesn't necessarily make you stupid.
Of course not. But the fact is that Bush voters are generally wealthier, which is a fact that Bozzy is disputing with donor claims, which are not near as important as the voters themselves.

One last tidbit: Kerry won 50-49% among those making less than $100,000 a year, it was only that group of voters who made more than that (which Bush carried 58-41%) that put him over the top.

While I'm at it, 55% of those making less than $50,000 a year voted for Kerry, while 56% of those making more than $50,000 a year voted for Bush.

Source (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html)
Well, $50,000 is far from rich, but it does pretty much cover the people who pay the bulk of income taxes. I suppose the people who pay no tax at all really don't care how it is spent, the rest voted for Bush.

Why should I post the data when NOT posting it seems to be producing much more intelligent discourse and additional info?
wow, so now it's okay to lie if it generates discussion from a lot of people who now have to work to debunk your lies?
And yes, as far as I am concerned, any statistics without a credible source on the internet is a lie.

wow, so now it's okay to lie if it generates discussion from a lot of people who now have to work to debunk your lies?
And yes, as far as I am concerned, any statistics without a credible source on the internet is a lie.
Then you won't mind if I say you are more intelligent than 99% of posters here.

wow, so now it's okay to lie if it generates discussion from a lot of people who now have to work to debunk your lies?
And yes, as far as I am concerned, any statistics without a credible source on the internet is a lie.
Cyrian, you're usually much nicer. Tsk-tsk! :D

Cyrian, you're usually much nicer. Tsk-tsk!
I am? wow, you've missed a good deal of my posts. I get mean when I get angry.
Yeah, I'm generally courteous, but I get annoyed when some random guy says "Heres some numbers I pulled out of my rectum, and I'm too good to give a source to you lazy asses. I don't have to prove my point, because I'm right"
now, if we wanted to discuss how low rates of education (http://www2.hawaii.edu/~bergen/bush.html) coincide with a vote for bush, or how overall, he seems to have a weak approval rating (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm) or even that his policies have led to 10000 American troops being wounded in combat, (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0104-12.htm) then you might have a debate.
the difference between my statistics and his is that I back mine up with sources, so that while you can question the credibility of my sources and what, exactly, the numbers mean, you cannot acuse me of pulling the numbers out of my ass.

So what is it, rich people are suddenly more altrustic than liberals ever gave them credit for, or the liberals have been pulling the wool over the eyes of their base making them think they are all about the 'little guy' while pandering to their rich donors.

Do you need some tissue to wipe those TEARS OF JEALOUSY from your eyes?

-TWN 14/88

Then you won't mind if I say you are more intelligent than 99% of posters here.
Yes, I would mind. That's a lie, as it is public knowlege that I am more intelligent than 97% of posters here. (http://www.livejournal.com/users/cyrianspace/296.html)

Yes, I would mind. That's a lie, as it is public knowlege that I am more intelligent than 97% of posters here. (http://www.livejournal.com/users/cyrianspace/296.html)
LOL, that is funny. I lost the thread and never saw your post before. :p

I have a poster for you: http://www.graphicexpectations.com/itemdetail.cfm?sku=2843

Also, since it seems everyone who was going to contribute something useful alreadu has (and I have the time - diaup sux) here is the link ; sorry but I forgot the article requires registration. I hate registration news sites, but almost all are these days.

Link (http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=WT&p_theme=wt&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_text_search-0=The%20AND%20richest%20AND%201%20AND%20percent&s_dispstring=The%20richest%201%20percent%20AND%20date(12/18/2002%20to%2012/18/2002)&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=12/18/2002%20to%2012/18/2002&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no)

Wait, you only JUST realised that your Democrat party are a bunch of rich hypocrites? Where have you been?

I gave my source - all that I need. If you want to check it be my guest, but don't expect me to do your work for you - even though that IS the liberal way of thinking.
Uhhh.... No, you didn't. You gave the name of an institution and didn't tell anyone how to find the specific study by that institution.

Why should I post the data when NOT posting it seems to be producing much more intelligent discourse and additional info?
Uhhh.... To avoid being mistaken for a troll and officially warned with trolling? To avoid being forumbanned?

iLock. You may repost this topic when you are ready to give a PROPER link to your source.

"Think about it for a moment."

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator