Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Democrats- Advocates for the Poor?

Again, Rich Bachelor has brought up a subject that I feel must be clarified. After Francis Lynn said,

"all politicians lie. It's just that yours (liberals, I assume. My words here, not Francis') lie more than mine." in answer to Francis, Rich Bachelor responded thusly:

"Of course they do Frank: they're not as well funded"

Let me put forth some real numbers here. According to an article in "The Roll Call", the official congressional newspaper, of Jan. 15, 2001, entitled the "Roll Call 50 Richest", by reporter Amy Keller:

1. Sen. John Kerry (D) Mass., $620 million
2. Sen. Jon Corzine (D) NJ,$400 million
3. Sen. Herb Kohl (D) Wis., $300 million
4. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D) W.Va., 200 million
5. Sen Lincoln Chaffee (R) R.I., $63 million
6. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) CA., $50 million
7. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D) Wash., $40 million (later Bankrupt)
8. Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R) Ill., $40 million
9. Sen. Bob Bennett (R) Utah, $30 million
10. Sen. John Edwards (D) N.C., $25 million
11. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D) Mass., $25 million

If "moderate Republican" Lincoln Chaffee (R) R.I. ever figures out that he is in the wrong party, nine of the top 11 would be Democrats. And Republican multi-millionaires are also more likely to have earned their money than to have married it.

Compare Republican Senator Bob Bennett, (who is still reaping the benefits of his days as a CEO of Franklin International Institute...Under his direction, the firm went from 4 employees to 800 and revenues skyrocketed from almost zero to more than $80 million annually) to John Kerry, who boasts a massive fortune thanks to his ketchup heiress wife's wealth.

Seriously now, who would be more likely to have a beer with a trucker? Tom Delay or Barbara Boxer?

13 comments:

Xena76 said...

Mark, are you ok??
I understood your point, but it took a little translation... If you're not and there is anything we can do, please say so...

Mark said...

what do you mean xena?

Poison Pero said...

It's kind of sad to see the Duke of Chappaquiddick isn't in the Top 10.....

I bet he ate and drank away a few million, not to mention the car's he's dropped in lakes......Otherwise he'd be ahead of Edwards.

tugboatcapn said...

How do you spell "Rockefeller"?
You should really proofread that post, Mark.
That's what Xena was talking about, I think.(Don't want to speak for her...)
I agree with you totally, Mark. Nothing makes me angrier than a millionare screaming from atop his pile of money about how much he supports the "little man" with MY money!!

Mark said...

Darn. I proofread that about 8 times and made correction after correction and that one escaped me.
It's not me. It's this danged left handed keyboard.

FrenziedFeline said...

If the Dems were so giving, they wouldn't have such big numbers after their names, as they would have given it away. ;)

Barbara Boxer is really outdoing herself lately. Even Dianne Feinstein seems to be trying to put some space between Barbara and herself. It's heck to be a conservative Californian with no representation.

rich bachelor said...

I don't think you've really proved anything here. Seems to me that the war chest of the republican party is larger, which is what I was really talking about.
Now, it's been pretty clearly presented that most American corporations give to both parties, just to be sure, but the numbers seem to skew ever so slightly in favor of the GOP.
Also, regardless of how rich as people the Dems might be (and Kerry in particular started life rich, long before he married), they at least seem to want to do something for the people in this country that don't have anything, which is one of the reasons that we have governments. Republicans, as far as I've noticed, would like to act like we don't have people starving for no reason in this, a fully industrialized first-world country.
Whenever anyone makes a little noise about it, there is a chorus of people screaming about how their tax dollars are not there to help other people in the society they live in. The possible solutions have never added up to much in the way of a fraction of the budget, as opposed to the millions we spend on what is euphemistically known as 'defense', say.

A.T. said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mark said...

Pero, if you look again you will see that Ted (the swimmer) Kennedy is in the top 10. Maria Cantwell went bankrupt.

Toad734 said...

Neither.

Maybe the Republicans just don't report their earnings and instead put their bribe and shake down money into off shore accounts like all the CEOs do in order to avoid paying all those socialist taxes.

Plus Tom Delay uses all his "political campaign" money for personal use so he doesn't need to earn as much.

You should be commending the Democrats for reporting their income and paying taxes.

Toad734 said...

By the way, why don't you get an updated version of this list, Peter Fitzgerald is not an Il Senator. How many others on this list are no longer there?

I heard Reagan was pretty rich.

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Seems to me that the war chest of the republican party is larger, which is what I was really talking about.
Now, it's been pretty clearly presented that most American corporations give to both parties, just to be sure, but the numbers seem to skew ever so slightly in favor of the GOP.


I don't feel that the Republicans have a monopoly on wealth. In the 2004 election, it was Democrats who revolutionized 527's; they spent around $230 million which is over 2 times the amount spent by Republicans. About 5 Democratic fatcats alone, donated something like $73 million to Kerry's campaign, which is equivalent to what the federal government gives to both parties to campaign with.

Republicans are not the only ones with rich and powerful influences.


Also, regardless of how rich as people the Dems might be (and Kerry in particular started life rich, long before he married), they at least seem to want to do something for the people in this country that don't have anything,

You know...if John Kerry really wanted to pay the higher tax, he could have. In his state of Mass, there is a box you can check off, and he didn't do so. He accepted Bush's tax cuts.

Donating to private charities is a better distribution for helping the poor and the needy than to force people into taxation and expecting government to do it more efficiently. People have less to give charitably if they are taxed into poverty themselves.

which is one of the reasons that we have governments. Republicans, as far as I've noticed, would like to act like we don't have people starving for no reason in this, a fully industrialized first-world country.

I've heard some stats that indicate republicans consistently donate more to charitable organizations. That could entail anything, and not just to the homeless, of course.

The way I see the difference is that the democratic solution is to give a man a fish each day, whereas the Republicans would rather teach the man how to fish for himself, so they feed him for life.

Both giving for immediate relief through charity and finding long term, permanent solutions (hopefully also a goal of charitable organizations) are important.

rich bachelor said...

The hardest part about this one is that my original point to Francis was that I think you'd have a hard time proving which side lies more. Mark, if you come back at me with some numbers on That one, I'll suspect you're just engaging in the time honored practice of lying with statistics.