The $150 Million Dollar Man

[Ausmerican]

Why is it again that ulta-rich people would be for a Democrat who wants to tax their money?

I think one of the explanations is that they are so rich, that if they lose some of it, it does not matter. That they value the Democrat for other reasons. What are those reasons? What is in it for THEM?

Wrong question. How about; Why is it that, by and large, self made rich people like Gates and the Hollywood crowd are for Obama and paying more taxes while 'old money' types are against it? Is it perhaps that the ones for Obama know they can make more and the others arent sure if they can?

 

[Ziggurat]

the Hollywood crowd are for Obama

Why on earth would you mention them to try to make your point? The Hollywood crowd make their living playing make-believe. They're about as detached from reality as you can get. Their endorsement shouldn't be considered as consequential by anyone.

 

[Ausmerican]

Why on earth would you mention them to try to make your point? The Hollywood crowd make their living playing make-believe. They're about as detached from reality as you can get. Their endorsement shouldn't be considered as consequential by anyone.

Which would be relevant if I was talking about endorsement per se. I was talking about wealthy people supporting him regardless of the fact that it would affect them financially.

And you're wrong by the way. The endorsement of anyone is as consequential as anyone else.

Are you saying there are no intelligent people in Hollywood?
None that are politically savvy?
What makes a talking head on TV more politically knowledgable than an actor? Ronald Reagan was an actor I believe. Arnold. Ventura. Eastwood. Hell, even Sonny Bono. All held political office and some of them did OK at it by most counts. To write off any entire group by painting them with as broad a brush as you did id ridiculous.

If you look at it from one way there are more similarities than differences between the two professions. They are both a long term popularity contest where you (for the most part) read lines other people wrote for you, try and make people beliee you are what they want you to be, do very little actual work for the money you are paid, and have staff to handle most aspects of everyday life.

You said that the Hollywood crowd are about as detached from reality as you can get. As detached as the Washington crowd?

 

[ProbeX]

A cap which can be circumvented.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/162403

Hmmm. Interesting.

And I suppose it's obvious, but for some reason it never occured to me that a single donor might simply make an obscene string of say, $20 donations over a short period of time, to get around the rule about donating large amounts all at once.

Your point is duly noted.

 

[Dr Adequate]

There's a picture crying out for a caption ...

* "Now, build me a pyramid!"

* "I suppose you're wondering why I asked you all here."

* "You mean everyone brought potato salad?"

 

[Random]

A cap which can be circumvented.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/162403

Of course, if that is all there is to it then Republicans should be able to do the same thing. Have wealthy contributors send in large amounts of money to the GOP in tiny portions to get around reporting laws.

Yet somehow, the Democratic praty is making a lot more money than the GOP this time around. I don’t think it is simply accounting tactics.

 

[Ziggurat]

Of course, if that is all there is to it then Republicans should be able to do the same thing. Have wealthy contributors send in large amounts of money to the GOP in tiny portions to get around reporting laws.

Yet somehow, the Democratic praty is making a lot more money than the GOP this time around. I don’t think it is simply accounting tactics.

Probably not. But the fact that Obama isn't taking public financing and thus is allowed to spend essentially unlimited amounts of money (whereas there's a cap on what McCain can spend because he's accepting public financing) does make such fraud both more likely and more useful for Obama donors than for McCain donors. Of course, McCain isn't blameless in this either: he's partly responsible for the current mess because of McCain-Feingold.

 

[dudalb]

... Because there's still a cap on how much each individual can donate.

And that rule is easily evaded. It has loopholes you can drive a 12 Ton Truck through. And both parties do just that.
Don't kid yourself, businesses can read the polls, and they are contributing to Obama to have some influence with who they see as the winner.

 

[Peephole]

A cap which can be circumvented.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/162403

That article doesn't say anything about circumventing the cap.

The only way to circumvent the caps is by donating indirectly to the candidates, to the National Committees and the Victory Funds.

 

[Ziggurat]

That article doesn't say anything about circumventing the cap.

Um... yes it did. In the first paragraph. "Consider the cases of Obama donors "Doodad Pro" of Nunda, N.Y., who gave $17,130, and "Good Will" of Austin, Texas, who gave more than $11,000—both in excess of the $2,300-per-person federal limit."

 

[Peephole]

Um... yes it did. In the first paragraph. "Consider the cases of Obama donors "Doodad Pro" of Nunda, N.Y., who gave $17,130, and "Good Will" of Austin, Texas, who gave more than $11,000—both in excess of the $2,300-per-person federal limit."

And that's money they have to give back...

Impressive,but if you think all that money came from small contributors, I have some ocean front property in Kansas you might be interested in.

Before the month of September, Obama got about 51% of his money from people donating $200 or less (compared to 34% for McCain). It'll be interesting to see if that has changed.

 

[Peephole]

Probably not. But the fact that Obama isn't taking public financing and thus is allowed to spend essentially unlimited amounts of money (whereas there's a cap on what McCain can spend because he's accepting public financing) does make such fraud both more likely and more useful for Obama donors than for McCain donors. Of course, McCain isn't blameless in this either: he's partly responsible for the current mess because of McCain-Feingold.

Actually, McCain has raised more money through "victory" committees ($150 million) than Obama ($135 million). And that's not taking into account the money brought in through the national committees.

And there's nothing "fraudulent" about those techniques by the way. They just go against the spirit of McCain's own laws.

 

[Ziggurat]

And that's money they have to give back...

Because they got caught after having circumvented the cap. And considering that those were fake names that didn't get caught by the campaign but by the FEC, it's quite possible that other donors have circumvented the cap without being caught by simply using multiple identities, but keeping donations from each identity under the cap.

 

[Peephole]

And do you have any examples of the FEC not detecting fake names? Or are you just speculating?

 

[roger]

Why is it again that ulta-rich people would be for a Democrat who wants to tax their money?

Buffett has spoken about this very publicly for quite some time.

For the benefit of the thread:

1. His secretary pays more taxes (in percentage points) then he does.

2. America made his fortune for him. He feel a debt towards America.

3. The money has to come from somewhere. Better to take it from the people who can afford it and continue spending, than the ones who can't.

In short, he makes policy decisions based on what is best for the country, not him personally. Sometimes the two are in conflict; I have a lot of respect for somebody who will vote against what benefits them personally.

 

[Ziggurat]

And do you have any examples of the FEC not detecting fake names? Or are you just speculating?

How would we be able to tell? The point of fake names is to fool people. If the deception works and the FEC doesn't catch them, how is anyone else going to catch them?

A few cases of fake names are obvious. But the names themselves need not be unreal names. How on earth would the FEC verify that the person whose name is given is actually the donor in every case? Deception is easy. Given that it's easy, I think you've got to be pretty damned naive to think it isn't happening, or that it's being caught in all cases. This isn't a problem unique to Obama either.

 

[Tony]

Why on earth would you mention them to try to make your point? The Hollywood crowd make their living playing make-believe. They're about as detached from reality as you can get. Their endorsement shouldn't be considered as consequential by anyone.

Republicans sure do think their opinions matter, they whine about "liberal Hollywood" constantly. They also elected someone who worked in Hollywood.

You're forgetting the other profession that peddles in make belief; religion and its clerics. No one is as detached from reality than a guy who thinks he has communication with god. Guess which side of the political spectrum has more people who listen to religious leaders?

 

[Ziggurat]

You're forgetting the other profession that peddles in make belief; religion and its clerics.

I'm not the one bringing up various groups' advocacy as being relevant, so take your complaints against religion elsewhere.

 

[chipmunk stew]

And that's money they have to give back...

Before the month of September, Obama got about 51% of his money from people donating $200 or less (compared to 34% for McCain). It'll be interesting to see if that has changed.

According to the press release from the Obama campaign, the average donation is 80-something dollars, and they have received contributions from over 3 million individuals.

 

[Ausmerican]

I'm not the one bringing up various groups' advocacy as being relevant, so take your complaints against religion elsewhere.

You mean the way I did in that post you never responded to?

ETA: As I said once before in another thread, republicans like to disregard the Hollywood crowd. Possibly because so few of them are for their party. But let one of the Hollywood crowd decide to try out politics, and if they are a republican, boy will you guys vote for them. Even if they are the most Hollywood you can get, like president of the Screen Actors Guild.