Who "The Rich" Really are in America Today
(Hint: They are Democrats, and they are making the rest of us poor...)
Note: The figures and statistics noted in these essays were compiled in 2007-8 and may have changed from that time.
The New Economics
101: As Nikitas3.com
has said repeatedly throughout this website, liberals are more obsessed with
wealth than capitalists and conservatives are; many more than half of all “rich” Americans
today are leftist liberals; and there are two types of
rich people, those who “create” wealth and those who “appropriate” wealth.
A new study by the Heritage Foundation, using Internal Revenue
Service data, reinforces these conclusions.
When the Democrats killed a tax
bill that would have 'taxed the rich', USA
Today said “The Democrats, who control Congress and who claim to represent
the middle and lower classes, ought to be embarrassed.”
If only it were so. In fact, the
Democrats are the party that is protecting “the rich”… their own kind of “rich”,
that is. To read more about how, go to the
Nikitas3.com essay on the home page called From Wealth Creation to Wealth
Destruction to learn the difference between getting rich "creating" wealth
versus getting rich by "appropriating" wealth.
And if you do not understand the “two
kinds” of rich people there are in
Here are the facts:
More Democrats than Republicans today represent districts and
states with the highest concentration of rich households. The Heritage
Foundation study combined two income categories – single with income more than
$100,000, and married with income over $200,000 –
and found that
Democrats now represent the majority of the wealthiest congressional districts.
And more
than 50% of the wealthiest households in
Ultra-liberal House Speaker Democrat Nancy
Pelosi represents one of the wealthiest parts of the nation, with her
The Republicans are the party of “the common people”. The Democrats
protect their wealthy friends through rhetorical means alone. They say how much
they favor the downtrodden and the middle class, while accumulating more and
more wealth for themselves.
Here’s more: The House Democrat majority leader Steny Hoyer represents the
And who is paying these salaries?
You, the taxpayer, that is who.
Yet House minority whip
Republican Roy Blunt comes from a
Ultra-liberal Democrat John Lewis
represents an
Speaker of the US House of
Representatives, far-left Democrat Nancy Pelosi, whose
Meanwhile, the most powerful Republican
in the House, John Boehner of
Don’t ever let the Democrats tell you
they are the “party of the common people”. They are the party of the rich… and
of the wrong kind of rich, the wealth “appropriators”, not the wealth
“creators”. And the decline in wealth “creation” in favor of wealth
“appropriation” is the reason that we are having so much economic trouble in
this nation today, and why the middle class is so hard-pressed. Because as
Nikitas3.com has said repeatedly,
socialism is the system of “the rich and the poor” while it is Republican
capitalism that distributes wealth more evenly throughout society.
This
website, along with my book Right Is Right,
long has been touting the fact that Democrats represent the “new rich” in
Today's socialism comes out of the 1960s 'hippie' generation. The 'hippies' claimed that they were 'anti-materialists' and 'spiritual' in nature. That is the opposite of the truth. As they have aged and shown their true stripes, they have proven to be the most materialistic people in history, and are diametrically opposed to genuine spirituality (they are anti-Christian).
It is time for
They’re Mostly Democrats, Sir…:
The Democrat party has been spreading the myth for decades that rich people are
all Republicans. But today well over 50% of people called “rich” are Democrats (wouldn’t we expect it to be 0%?) and that number is increasing
annually into the 60% to 70% range, and even higher in some districts. Go into
the wealthy suburbs of
And most of the “super-rich” in
The three richest men in
Meanwhile, virtually all of the ultra-rich
The Democrats in fact are shielding the rich and the super-rich from scrutiny by “the
rest of us". By saying that they are liberals, rich liberals “immunize”
themselves from criticism about having so much money, easing their consciences
and getting richer and richer every year while increasingly marginalizing the
middle class, as evidenced in this
interview with Larry Ellison from the
Q: But you're a Democrat.
A: I am a Democrat, but so is Arnie. I mean, to look at Arnold Schwarzenegger's
positions and call him a Republican is kind of a bizarre thing. There are no
Republicans in
Five years ago, (
Q: Didn't you once say you wanted to run for governor?
A: No. What I said was there are a few things I am deeply concerned about, one
of which is education.
If I thought I could make a difference in education by
running for governor or any other position, would I be willing to do that?
Absolutely.
The state of our educational system is the biggest crisis we have facing this
country, especially in
Q: Are there one or two things you'd suggest to improve it?
A: I'm for a means-tested voucher system. Right now, you have
a system where rich people, like myself, can send their kids to private school
and poor people can't, which is outrageous. A single mother has no choice but to
send her child to a school where no teaching goes on.
Choice is a good thing, and poor parents, disadvantaged
parents, should have the same choices that I have.
Q: Wouldn't a better choice be to improve the public schools?
A: We don't know how to make the public school system work.
We tried for years, and we continue to condemn poor people, minority children,
to these dreadful schools.
The argument that everyone gives is, "Why don't we just make
this work?" You've had 50 years. You failed. I don't believe you're going to
make it work in the next five years. In the next five years, this child has to
be taught. So enough. You failed.
Now consider Ellison's words. First, Ellison admits that he is a Democrat, which means a lefty in ultra-rich
California-speak. Then he goes on to say that
Yet his friends in the Democrat party and the teacher unions
control the public education system across this nation lock, stock and barrel, while
multibillionaire Larry Ellison cannot influence them one iota. This is telling.
Imagine if, say, three out of every ten gallons of gasoline
sold by ExxonMobil had water and other impurities in it, and clogged your
engine. There would be demands for a government takeover for stealing from the
public. Yet the same type of abysmal statistics about the failures in public
education go unchallenged, and show that the Democrats and their friends in the
media and in Congress are totally unwilling to reform the teacher unions that then turn around
and are supporting the Democrat party, lock, stock and barrel, with huge
campaign contributions, phone banks, volunteers etc.
When asked: “Are there one or two things you would do to
improve (public education)?” Ellison never answers the question because he knows
well that the socialist control of education cannot be challenged, by him
or by Schwarzenegger or by anyone else.
This is nonsense. What really needs to happen is that we need to pressure states and localities to pass laws to make the schools accountable and to strip away the protections built in by years of Democrat pro-union law-making. Get rid of the tenure system, make schools accountable to the public, scrutinize their taxpayer-busting budgets, and on and on. But the Democrats block reform every time.
Look at what else Ellison says: “I'm for a means-tested
voucher system. Right now, you have a system where rich people, like myself, can
send their kids to private school and poor people can't, which is outrageous. A
single mother has no choice but to send her child to a school where no teaching
goes on. Choice is a good thing, and poor parents, disadvantaged parents, should
have the same choices that I have.”
No, it is not outrageous that Ellison can send his kids to private school. That is the system that rich Democrats have crafted for themselves. It is their own choice to keep their kids out of the public system while their own party fights any reform. It is totally expected. It is outrageous that Ellison would feign outrage!
Also,
Ellison and his friends live in the richest
neighborhoods in
If he said that, as a Democrat, that he wants reform and vouchers for everyone
including the middle
class, that would be too much of a challenge to teacher union power because it
would represent a challenge to every school district in
Look at what else Ellison says: “If I thought I could make a
difference in education by running for governor or any other position, would I
be willing to do that? Absolutely.”
Notice his words... “if I thought I could make a difference…”
Which he knows he can’t. Because the public-ed bureaucracy is a
closed empire and cannot be challenged, even by the Democrat party that keeps it
in power, and that it keeps in power. When was the last time you saw a bunch of
grim-faced public-sector school officials dragged before Congress to testify on
their failures the way you see private-sector oil-company execs and pharmaceutical
company execs and health-care execs constantly paraded before investigative
committees?
What does this say about the modern-day Democrat party?
It says that this is the party that protects a certain minority in America
-- its rich and ultra-rich friends and its labor-union friends -- while the
majority suffers under a disastrous public education system.
"The Rich" Indeed Get Richer: Imagine for the sake of round numbers that the American economy is
producing $10 trillion annually in wealth.
Imagine that the people who call themselves part of Group A are
getting $4 trillion while those who adhere to the opposing ideals of Group B are
getting $6 trillion, and that the people of the nation are generally happy.
Imagine that there are good jobs everywhere, that the economy is growing, people
are buying homes and producing lots of finished products – cars, furniture,
computers, tools, lamps etc.
Now imagine that the American economy actually starts to shrink, and
produces only $9 trillion in wealth, and several million people are losing their
jobs. And imagine that Group A now is getting a larger share of the total, or $5
trillion, while Group B is getting a much smaller share of the total, with only
$4 trillion.
Who would be happy?
Obviously, even with economic dislocations in the shrinking economy,
Group A would be very happy because its share of the wealth actually had
increased even
as the nation’s total wealth had
decreased.
Now imagine that the total wealth of the nation dropped to $8
trillion, and millions more people were losing their jobs, but that Group A was
getting $6 trillion and Group B was getting only $2 trillion.
Who would be happy?
Obviously, despite the dire economic circumstances, people in Group
A would be very happy because their wealth – and also their political power --
had increased yet again, and they would like to see the trend continue and would
seek to continue to entrench that trend through policy.
Now imagine that the economy dropped to $7 trillion, tens of
millions more were living in misery, and Group A was getting all $7 trillion,
along with all the political power, while Group B was getting zero.
Who would be happy?
Obviously the people in Group A would like the trend very much, even
though millions were suffering. They would be much, much richer than ever and
have more power than ever.
This parable might be seen as an allegory about the evils of
capitalism, where “the rich get richer” as everyone else gets poorer. And it
would look like a description of the way that corporate titans and their
shareholders and political cronies were increasing their wealth as people were
being thrown out of their jobs.
And in fact this story really is a metaphor for what is happening in
Unfortunately, though, the people in the richer and richer Group A
are liberal socialists, regulators, taxers, bureaucrats, college professors and
environmentalists on the Democrat side of the aisle, and their wealth and power
indeed are increasing as the national economy declines. The conservative
capitalists in fact are in Group B, whose power indeed is declining in
Here is how it works:
Throughout our history, the American economy has been expanding.
There certainly have been peaks and valleys, but in general, the nation’s wealth
has been steadily increasing.
The reason is that the Founding Fathers specifically wanted
So our economy grew over two centuries. As some people got extremely
wealthy, others further down the economic chain were able to become very
prosperous, prosperous or even just a little prosperous, while those at the very
bottom were able to be helped by charity from the large amount of wealth that
the economy was creating.
Compared to the history of the world, the overall picture was of a
nation in which various levels of prosperity above mere subsistence were
attainable to “the common man” for one of the few times ever.
Consequently, tens of millions of immigrants came to
Our nation for its first 125 years had been a Group B nation. People
were free to start businesses, build barns, grow corn, manufacture chairs and
generate power without massive interference from the government like regulation,
red tape and bureaucracy. Taxes were low. Entrepreneurs started businesses and
paid their workers whatever they wished without unions or government dictating
what that pay rate should be. There were no environmental regulations or
restrictions, no wetlands laws or the like.
But still, there was great growth and prosperity and many good and
innovative people built up the American economy, and millions of happy people
were the result. It was overall a positive picture.
Beginning in the 20th century, however, people began to
agitate over the shortcomings in the economy. Labor unions began to organize
workers and demand better wages, and better work and safety conditions.
Businesses were taxed in order to fund government operations. Government began
to impose myriad regulations on unscrupulous business practices. And later on,
by the 1960s, environmental pollution finally was being seen for the real hazard
that it was.
In each case, needed remedial action was taken by government and
activist groups, often over many years and through persistent work, and finally
we reached a state where pure economic growth was counter-balanced with
government oversight, worker protection and environmental protection so that
everyone was able to better share in the national prosperity.
We could say that
But today, things are changing rapidly in favor of Group A, and they
began to change almost 100 years ago. It really started in earnest in 1913 when
America instituted a federal income tax that today is taking larger and larger
proportions of individuals’ and businesses’ wealth, a level of taxation that is
far too large, according to the ideas of the Founding Fathers who fought to
break from Britain over the same issue of over-taxation.
Government regulators and bureaucrats in Group A have grown
tremendously in power over the last 100 years. Unions in the 1950s controlled
almost one-third of the private-sector American workforce, although today that
figure is much less, only around 12% in both the public and private sectors
combined. And today environmental laws cover every single facet of economic
development. These Group A people (government workers, some unions, Democrat
party functionaries, environmentalists) are increasing their wealth and power
every day as the American economy produces less and less wealth, and as millions
suffer economic decline. And as this happens, we are going to see much worse
dislocation as we did when Group B had the preponderance of power.
Consider regulation. Once hardly regulated, the American economy
today is highly regulated. Business is told myriad things it can and cannot do
from mandates that they should offer their workers (health insurance, sick leave
etc.) to pages on pages of behavior codes for not only employees, but employers
too, who are barred even from asking certain simple questions of applicants like
“Are you married?”
These laws are written for the most part by busybody Democrats in
the various legislatures who pass more and more laws because that is all they
know how to do—get elected to office and make laws over the people. And as they
write more and more laws, they gain more political power for themselves and
their friends in Group A, and are able to sway more and more of the nation’s
wealth through this political power.
Power attracts wealth and wealth attracts power.
The tax system, created by Group A, has become overwhelmingly
burdensome, with armies of lawyers and accountants needed just for the simplest
procedures. The tax code has grown from zero pages in 1912 to more than 50,000
pages today. The system requires huge investments of time and money from
business and individuals, all of which saps the economic vigor of business and
discourages economic expansion and new job creation. Average Americans live in
fear of the Group A Internal Revenue Service and that is the way the IRS wants
it. Meanwhile, many businesses have moved their operations overseas to escape
excessive taxation. They say, “Why bother with all this nonsense.”
Environmental laws are strangling business all over
So as Group A increases its power over the nation, the national
wealth declines. But Group A does not care as long as its share of the wealth
increases, and as long as its political power increases. This is called
socialism and the whole point of socialism is to get more wealth
and power. Period.
As businesses pay more and more in taxes, and as the government
increases its power over business and individual citizens, people who are
members of government Group A public-employee unions (including school teachers) get
more money, higher salaries and better benefit and pension plans. And the
private-sector taxpayer (Group B) gets poorer! And if you’ll
notice, all over the declining economies of the Northern Tier of America from
Naturally, as is typical under Group A socialism, the
more school budgets rise and the more school teachers are paid and the more
power they subsequently accrue, the worse is the
quality of education. And school teachers are getting more and more of the
nation’s wealth ($500 billion for public education annually, and rising). The
median income of a public school teacher, according to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, is the same income as for the population in general… except that
many school teachers work only 75% the number of hours of most people in the
private sector! So they actually are making a
higher salary per hour than people in
the private sector, which they do not want you to know.
At the same time, it is an established statistic today that, as
living standards decline overall in private-sector America, that other
government employees - federal, state and local - increasingly are making more
salary and getting much better benefits and pensions than private-sector
employees (toll collectors on the Massachusetts Turnpike make $70,000 a year for
a $25,000 a year job. Boston police officers make $123,000 per year). This is part of the increasing wealth of the Group A
economy.
The richest county in
And who lives there? Corporate titans? Capitalist robber barons?
No,
Meanwhile private-sector labor unions demand higher and higher
wages, all of which are paid by the
consumer. This saps business, the consumer and the economy in general
because unions artificially inflate costs, and shift wealth, in favor of Group
A. And it weakens the companies that these unions work for. Just look at General
Motors. Then when factories are closed, the unions extract big severance
packages out of General Motors.
And finally, what about the college professors, in their bastions of
Group A socialism? Yes, college costs – and even college textbook costs – are
rising at three times the rate of inflation, enriching this Group A constituency
as the parents of
Indeed, Group A is getting richer and richer, and has more and more
power as Americans become incrementally poorer and poorer. Which suits Group A
just fine.
So what about the scenario where Group A controls 100% of the wealth
as the nation’s total wealth declines to $7 trillion as in the example above?
That is what is slowly happening in America, so slowly that people
do not appreciate it. And of course, the media dismiss it, talking about the
profits of oil companies, how rich Republicans are hogging all the money etc.
But just think how little real power the “rich” oil companies have in
And in another example of how this wealth-shifting works, many
millions of Group A Democrats -- including rich urban liberals, public-employee
unions, public school teacher unions, left-wing college professors, upper-income
liberal professionals, and even environmental groups -- own stock in…
American corporations.
So as the media throw a temper tantrum over the profits of, say,
ExxonMobil, who is benefiting from these profits?
In large part, Group A liberals are benefiting, that is who. And
since they are anti-business and anti-corporate in their political positions,
they are using capitalism’s own wealth to fight against the interests of
wealth-creating capitalism and to shift this wealth to Group A!
Meanwhile, the richest people in
Why are they voting Democrat? Because wealthy people want to be part
of the increasing political and economic power of Group A so as to increase
their own power, money and prestige, even if the nation as a whole is suffering.
Remember too that rich people get fawning media coverage only if
they are liberals, and so they become liberals and are invited to all the
liberal parties, and get good press in The New York Times. The three
richest men in
Ultimately, the $7 trillion scenario above very slowly is coming to
pass as Group A today (Democrats, hard-left socialists) is talking about
increasing taxes on the wealthy, on business, on everybody else, about
restricting energy production in America, and about ratcheting up enviro regs
all over the nation through their ‘global warming’ fantasy. These factors will
combine to slow the American economy even further and to give to Group A more
and more of the nation’s wealth and power.
Eventually, this will lead to disaster. Because when business is
increasingly hamstrung, the wealth of the nation could plummet quickly to, say,
$3 trillion. This is what happens in communist countries, where the economy
always falls off a cliff and leaves the population destitute.
And then, of course, the people in Group A start fighting amongst
themselves over the remaining wealth, and they start killing each other off. And
you know the rest of the story. The remaining wealth, as it shrinks, is
concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, and in the hands of the military, which
protects this elite.
This wealth-dissipation scenario does not happen under conservative
capitalism. Despite all its flaws, capitalism still is the only system under
which wealth generally expands. Under socialism, wealth always contracts as it
is placed in fewer hands. And this is what we are facing if we do not stop this
massive wealth transfer trend today.
Two Kinds of Rich People:
Every day in the
media it seems that there is some reference to “the rich” or to “rich people”.
The implication always is that all rich people are Republicans who are protected
by Bush, and that Democrats are just everyday moderate-income salts of the earth
who are on the side of the “little guy”. But a closer look shows how utterly
false this idea is.
First, the two richest men in
Second, the 8 richest people in the
United States Senate are all far-left Democrats including John Kerry, Ted
Kennedy, Diane Feinstein (
Third, most of the ultra-rich actors,
producers, directors and agents in
And fourth -- in by far the biggest group -- many, many, many
of the upper-income, rich and super-rich people all over liberal, urban America
(many of them quite famous) in places like San Francisco, New York, Chicago,
Seattle and other cities, along with all those cities’ wealthy suburbs, are
devout Democrats, some of them very far to the left.
And fifth, many of the ultra-wealthy
entrepreneurs in
Overall, many of these people have much,
much more wealth than George Bush or Dick Cheney. And looking at glittering,
big-bucks campaign fundraisers in 2007, you could surmise that at least half of
all the “rich” people in
Are there rich Republicans? Of course
there are. But this is understood; we have been hearing about them since time
immemorial, and they have been portrayed as capitalist “robber barons” for more
than a century. But the idea that the wealth of
And here is the important part:
They preach
socialism not in order to “help the poor”, as they say, but to continue to
enrich themselves without challenge, because they cover up for each other and
for their massive wealth accumulations with their socialist rhetoric.
To understand this, recall that there are two distinct ways of
getting rich.
First, you can get rich by “manufacturing” things. You mine
iron ore and turn it into steel. You manufacture copper wire for the
transmission of electricity. You harvest trees and turn them into timber for
home construction. You manufacture automobiles. You make mailboxes, hand tools,
piping, lamps, furniture, plastics, spaghetti, ladders, paint, roofing shingles,
office chairs, soap, razor blades, glass, oatmeal, shoes, sunglasses, and on an
on.
“Making” things always is a process of taking natural
resources from the ground and turning them into finished goods. This is how the
world’s wealth ultimately is created, and always has been created, because iron
ore, for instance, has no intrinsic value until it is turned into something that
people want, while trees are beautiful to look at, but gain economic and social
value for humans when they are harvested, refined and become homes that people
need to live in, or furniture.
And the process of “making” things always requires mining and
timber harvesting and manufacturing processes and repetitive toil and energy
consumption. And this is how many so-called conservative capitalists create the
products that make our lives better every day, and also create the world’s
wealth, not only for themselves but for others through job creation. Just think
about how many towns are happy when “the mill” is operating full steam, and sad
when “the mill” closes down?
Yet as this happens, at every turn, conservatives who create
wealth and products this way are attacked by the media and by environmentalists
and by labor-union activists, consumer activists and academics.
The greenie environmentalists say that
as capitalists mine coal and iron and then make steel, that the earth and air
are being despoiled.
Nag, nag, nag…
And all these complaints are echoed through the friendly
media.
All of these groups – media,
environmentalists, consumer activists, college professors, labor unions and
Yet as mentioned above, many people over on the political
liberal/left side are fabulously wealthy, so we must look at how this happens if
indeed they are not creating any wealth in the first place.
For instance, if Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy has never
produced a single kilowatt-hour of electricity, or one chair, or one ton of
steel, how did he get rich?
The answer is that he inherited it, just as Massachusetts
Senator John Kerry “inherited” a $1.5 billion fortune by… marrying a woman with a
$1 billion fortune.
And how did Al Gore accumulate a
reported $100 million in wealth
without making a single light bulb or screwdriver?
He made speeches about ‘global warming’ and became influential
and got people to give him money, that is how.
Where did ultra-liberal Oprah Winfrey get her $2.5 billion
fortune? Did she manufacture cars or telephones or plumbing fixtures?
No, she sits in front of TV cameras and babbles for an hour a
day.
In other words, while many people get rich doing “hard” things
like running factories and manufacturing goods, liberals, on the other hand, do
“soft” things like acting in movies or on TV, or making speeches, or owning
newspapers, or shuffling paper around in the stock market. Or inheriting their
money.
Here’s an interesting observation:
Joseph P. Kennedy, Senator Kennedy’s father, accumulated much of the family’s
fortune in the 1920s. How? By shuffling paper, that’s how, by pulling a series
of shady stock-market and securities deals, the kind that are outlawed today.
And the way he did it is this: Every dollar that he obtained for himself was a
dollar lost by another person. That is why the practices he used are outlawed
today. He did not create wealth and
jobs by manufacturing paper or furniture. He
appropriated it, leaving other people
high and dry in the process.
Much of the urban wealth in
And while many of the people who make
this paper-shuffling money are Republicans, many, many of them are far-left Democrats, like the
ones in
But these Democrats often themselves get rich in the markets, then decry the
way that wealth is created in the first place. They advocate heavy taxes on
business, propose over-reaching enviro rules, favor overly-invasive business
regulation and paperwork, ask for mandates on companies to do this and that for
their employees, and support organized labor in its quest to bully private
business into giving more and more and more in wages, benefits, pensions etc.
Now look at Senator Kerry. He got his
money by marrying his rich wife. But how did she get
her $1 billion fortune? Answer: She
was married to Senator John Heinz of the Heinz family ketchup, relish and
mustard fortune. When Senator Heinz was killed in a plane crash, she got the
money. She did nothing for it… except to marry it. And now she uses that money
to advocate socialism under which Heinz-type fortunes cannot be amassed, but
rather would be taxed and regulated away; or by giving huge amounts of money to
radical enviro groups like the Tides Foundation which thwart economic growth
everywhere with endless legal obstruction on extracting resources like coal,
oil, timber etc.
So if rich socialists advocate “taxing the rich”, are they not
saying that they themselves wish to pay more in taxes?
No. Look deeper and you will see what is happening:
They wish to tax and regulate businesses
that create wealth, like utilities that generate electricity, and mills that
make the essential steel that our society uses every day. These are for the most
part not “their” businesses, but are the businesses of conservative capitalists.
Meanwhile, “their” businesses are owning newspapers and giving speeches and
inheriting money and shuffling paper. (Don’t misunderstand: Some liberals in
fact do create wealth by “making” things, just as some conservatives make money
in the media. But not many.)
But ultimately what liberals wish to do is to use
tax and government policies and environmentalism to thwart new wealth creation
in Other Peoples’ Businesses (conservative businesses).
Certainly in the short run it will appear that they themselves
may pay somewhat more in taxes if rich liberals succeed in “taxing the rich”.
But as these liberals thwart new wealth creation, they ultimately will have less
competition for power, and ultimately themselves will get richer and richer and
richer. Just go to any communist country and you will find the dictator and his
friends with billions and the population impoverished.
After all, if Al Gore can make $100 million giving speeches
about ‘global warming”, imagine how much wealth he will accumulate if ‘global
warming’ becomes absolutely accepted worldwide as fact, and myriad new
environmental regulations slow down our economy, push up energy prices and throw
millions out of work.
He may end up making $1 billion or $10
billion because his power will increase exponentially. He will become one of the
most powerful men in the world. And the media will cover up for him and tell
Billionaires for Barack
Barrack Obama of Illinois, the most liberal member of the
United States Senate and now the presumed nominee of the Democrat party to be
President of the
This should sound surprising to a media-saturated nation
which is propagandized by leftist folklore year after year that the Republican
party is the party of “the rich” and is the party that doesn’t care about anyone
except itself and its wealth.
These media, along with their allies in the entertainment
industry, the public schools, the arts and the college professoriate have told
us for decades that Democrats are all just salt-of-the-earth types trying to rub
two nickels together to buy a skimpy sandwich that some scrooge Republican is
trying to take away from them.
If only it were so. But quite the opposite it true. Buffett’s
endorsement comes as no surprise at all to those who study the facts about
wealth in
And it is crucial to recall that when a rich person – or any
American at all – gives a dollar to today's Democrat party that they in fact are
fueling a far more radical leftist ideology than the Republican party is
conservative. Because as Republicans have become more moderate, Democrats are
increasingly leftist.
No, you may insist, that cannot be true.
But yes. Just look at George Bush’s ostensibly “conservative”
agenda which in fact has angered many conservatives as far too moderate.
And then look at the ultra-liberal face of the Democrat party
with senators like Obama, Boxer, Schumer, Feingold, Durbin, Murray, Kennedy,
Kerry, Leahy, Sanders and Levin; a Congressional Black Caucus that votes as a
bloc way over on the left; and many caucasian congresspeople who are far-left
like Speaker Pelosi, Kucinich, DeLauro, Woolsey, Capps, Harmon, Sanchez,
DeFazio, McDermott, Moran, Frank, Markey, Delahunt, Maloney, Slaughter, Miller,
Loewy, Nadler and many, many more.
On the Forbes 400 list of
America’s 4th richest man on the list, Larry Ellison, with
$26 billion, is a self-admitted Democrat who has given about equally to
Democrats and Republicans ($127,700 to $135,600) which means that he has fueled
a leftist tilt in American politics just by giving evenly.
Bill Gates ($59 billion) the richest man in America at the time of the list, is shown to have given $67,000 to Democrats and $81,000 to Republicans. But Gates has publicly supported very liberal political positions like the status quo in public schools, abortion rights, higher taxes in his home state of Washington, and gun control.
Microsoft CEO Steven Ballmer, #16 on the Forbes list with $15.2 billion, has given $80,642 to Republicans and $59,450 to Democrats. Shouldn’t it all be Republican for this wealthy man if the media folklore is true?
Even Alice Walton of the Wal-Mart Waltons, at #15 on the list
with $16.1 billion, gave $320,000 to Republicans and $187,000 to Democrats.
Isn’t this supposed to be the right-wing Republican family that is in bed with
Bush and corporate
Microsoft’s Paul Allen, #11 on the list at $16.8 billion, has
given to both Republicans and Democrats, but favors Democrats $184,450 to
Republicans $27,900.
Michael Bloomberg, #25 on the list with $11.5 billion, the
Maybe rich people are not conservative at all...
Kirk Kerkorian, #7 on the Forbes list with $18 billion, whose
wealth source is listed as ‘investments, casinos’ gave $103,500 to Republicans
and $73,300 to Democrats. That’s a lot of money for the Democrat party for a
“rich Republican” to be giving.
Carl Icahn, of leveraged buyouts fame, #18 on the list with
$14.5 billion in assets, gave almost equally, $185,000 to Republicans and
$190,000 to Democrats.
George Soros, #33 on the Forbes list with $8.8 billion, has
contributed heavily to far-left causes like moveon.org and radical
environmentalists.
So why do all these “rich Republicans” give so much to
Democrats?
Because the wealth of the nation is shifting in favor of
socialism. And the rich indeed are getting richer - the Democrat rich that is.
And the gap between rich and poor is increasing. Between the Democrat rich and
the poor that is.
Google CEO Eric Schmidt (2004 net worth $2.8 billion) gave
$25,000 that year to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. His total
contributions listed on the internet are $6,500 Republican and $229,216
Democrat. Meanwhile employees of Google, one of the richest and fastest growing
firms in
No, friends, the reality is quite different from the folklore
that you are presented every day, and it should be troubling to all Americans.
Our nation’s privileged classes are becoming more liberal with every passing
year at all levels from the super-rich; to the middle class (public school
teachers, government employees (Boston, Massachusetts police officers earn more
than $120,000 a year), college professors and other socialists all have
statistically the highest incomes in the middle class); and even down to the
poor (the government-dependent poor - most specifically single mothers with
children - are better off financially than working poor people).
So what is going on?
First, Warren Buffett is part of a long trend in which “the rich” are convinced that the wealth-creating aspects of capitalism are unjust, and that the real generosity of a society comes out of wealth redistribution via government. Obviously this is nonsense, because only capitalism has created a middle class anywhere in the world. Still rich people are often convinced that their own wealth is a mark of shame.
This works particularly well with inheritors of wealth who
feel guilty over their pure luck in having been born rich. And thus they feel an
innate need to appear generous. But they do not think of starting businesses to
create jobs and wealth because that would be real work. So they think only of
giving away wealth (socialism) because that is the lazy man’s way to exonerate
their guilt.
Guilt has worked well throughout history. Karl Marx, who defined modern communism with The Communist Manifesto, was a child of privilege.
And through the media’s insistent push for socialism and
wealth redistribution nationwide, rich people are offered a choice: Either talk
the socialist agenda or the non-business media will ignore you or trash you.
Take your pick.
There are many rich people who are naturally socialistic.
They do not wish to really do any hard work to help the nation as conservatives
do in starting companies to help expand the economy. They do not study
economists like Adam Smith, or consider the Founding Fathers who recognized that
true wealth equity would come through free markets and private enterprise.
No, they vote Democrat in order to “let the government do it” and the media then
portray them as compassionate. This gives them a free pass to live their
materialistic lives and to exonerate their guilt.
And as living standards are declining in
So today, we know for certain that many of the ultra-rich in
In a few simple quotes, here is what you could expect to hear
from the ultra-rich (these are not actual quotes, but are fabricated by
Nikitas3.com):
*“I am Warren Buffett. I have gained my wealth through
investments. I sit in front of computer screens to get my riches. This is the
lazy man’s way. I am a Democrat so that the government will “take care of” all
those pesky social problems. If I ever advocate the conservative free-market
ideals that I have taken advantage of to get rich, I will be portrayed by the
media as hard-hearted. So I support Obama.”
*”I am Oprah Winfrey. I have a net worth of $2.5 billion. I make my living as a silly TV host fawning over empty-headed Hollywood stars; advocating wealth redistribution through my support of Obama; and presenting Al Gore and his ‘global warming’ theory as an honest and legitimate stance. All in the name of appearing generous and open-minded and informed. If I ever advocate conservative free-market ideals, I will be portrayed by the media as hard-hearted. So I support Obama."
*”I am Ted Kennnedy. My family has a $1 billion fortune that
I never worked a single day for. That makes me feel guilty. So I favor wealth
redistribution… as long as it is not my wealth. If I ever advocate
conservative free-market ideals, I will be portrayed by the media as
hard-hearted. So I support Obama.*
*”I am John Kerry. I married a female with a $1.5 billion
fortune that she got from her husband,
And on and on.
So what is the problem with all these rich people, and
hundreds and thousands more like them? Why are so many rich elites in
Because of relentless media attacks on capitalism; because of
the "appropriation" of huge amounts of wealth through easy channels like
Hollywood; because of the spread of feminism in which simplistic wealth
redistribution is seen as the way to help the poor; and through the feminization
of men, who become soft and pliable in the hands of the media, and people like
Oprah Winfrey, uneducated Hollywood stars, and their wives and girlfriends.
American wealth today is shifting decidedly to the left.
Barack Obama is the favorite of the new socialist elite in
Today in
This will play out in this year’s Billionaires for Barack campaign. And if Obama wins, his policies will undermine our economy and the electorate will clamor for the return of conservatism in 4 years, as Europeans are voting "right" in large numbers to undo the damage done by the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the political left.