Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: steve harris who wrote (156500)	12/19/2002 1:53:50 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1579067

Another myth about "the rich" has been shattered – namely the conventional wisdom that they are all Republicans – thanks to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. A December 18, 2002 Washington Times editorial reports that donors giving "small and medium amounts" in 2002 overwhelmingly supported the GOP, while "rich or deep-pocketed givers" hugely backed the Democrats! 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. This is really funny stuff. First, Mr. Rush undermines his argument that the GOP is not the party of the rich by stating that the GOP raised ONLY 40 million more dollars than the Dems. Only a rich man would consider $40 million chump change. Secondly, its appears Mr. Rush and the WA Times have made some assumptions that aren't necessarily accurate. In the WA Times article, they claim the GOP gets more money from small donors than the Dems and accordingly, is the party of the little guy. It appears an assumption has been made that may well be erroneous; that small donors have small incomes. What is far more likely is that the small donors are just cheap. And that would fit.......most Reps. I have met are fairly cheap. [That's okay; so am I.] To assume there is a correlation between the size of the donation and the donor's income is a mistake especially at the low end of the donation scale. This assumption that the size of the donation suggests the donor's income is made throughout the article. Its hardly the stuff of good analysis. I think Mr. Rush was so desperate to make his original point regarding the GOP and the Rich that he missed this obvious gaffe and flew right in the face of conventional wisdom.....that most of America's CEOs are GOP and that CEOs tend to be the richest people in the land. I think that's why the GOP was able to raise 40 million more dollars that their poorer competitor. There is just that many more rich GOP who are able to cough up something from their closely guarded millions. Really, you didn't think Scrooge was a liberal, did you? In any case, thank you for bringing this article to the attention of the thread. It lends good support to two of my premises........the GOP IS the party of the RICH, and Mr. Rush is not the masterful analyst Mr. Ray would have us believe! Have a good one! ted