Democrats: The Party of the Super-Duper (Mostly White) Gazillionaires

Though there are numerous questions I could ask to determine if a fellow American gets his "news" from the DMIC (Democrat Media Industrial Complex), I usually lead with this one: "What political party is the party of the wealthy?"

If the answer is "the Republican Party," I know that the individual is a regular consumer of DMIC propaganda.  It's tempting to get angered at the individual, but I know that two of the ways the DMIC lies are by distorting and withholding.

The Democratic Party is the party of the mega-, mega-wealthy.  This is one of the dangerous cover-ups of the DMIC.  Let's go to the tale of the tape.

Here are the top ten American billionaires, according to Forbes:

  1. Bill Gates, $86 billion
  2. Warren Buffet, $75.6
  3. Jeff Bezos, $72.8
  4. Mark Zuckerberg, $56.0
  5. Larry Ellison, $52.2
  6. Charles Koch, $48.3
  7. David Koch, $48.3
  8. Michael Bloomberg, $47.5
  9. Larry Page, $40.7
  10. Sergey Brin, $39.8

Well, well, well – look at all that wealth that could be redistributed!  The above wealth totals $567 billion.  The Ds above outnumber the Rs 7-3 (I counted the Kochs twice, even though they could be counted as one; the third is Ellison), with 74% of the wealth owned by the Democrats. 

Oh, the hypocrisy, the hypocrisy!  Perhaps you're asking yourself: What's my fair share of all those billions?

Democrats spread their wealth to other Democrats

Make no mistake: in addition to campaign contributions, which can be viewed at OpenSecrets.org (I have no affiliation), the Democrat billionaires do believe in wealth redistribution, which is why they've invested their monies across every Democrat-friendly industry – from media to technology to anti-Second Amendment groups.  It's the Democrats' (legal) version of a Madoff scheme.

In 2016, the Kochs – favorite targets of Democrats – spent over $31 million ($11 million to candidates and political action committees and $20 million on lobbying).  These big bucks certainly are not chump change, but they're ranked 39 among all donors to candidates and PACs and 27 among all lobbyist spending.

Whatever one's opinion of money in politics, in all its forms – soft, hard, dark, by individual, by family – it's indisputable that it is a wide and deep hole that both major parties have leveraged.

But why stop at the Democrat gazillionaires?  Let's take a look at other Democrat 1-Percenters.

I checked dollar amounts at the Federal Election Commission, where campaign contributions are tabulated (keep in mind that there is usually a lag in tabulations – sometimes up to a year due to off-year election years).  Here's a 2014 graph; there's some crossover, but the D contributions outnumber R by almost half a billion dollars, and this is over the last 25 years.

For 2016 federal contributions to organizations, seven of the top 10 (including number 1) went to Democrats, totaling over $300 million.

For 2016 federal contributions to individuals, six of the top 10 (including number 1) went to Democrats, totaling nearly $250 million.

In the 2016 Presidential election, President Trump spent $325 million; Clinton spent $563 million.

The Democrat myth of publicly financed elections

Does one really think Democrats want campaign finance reform, or publicly financed elections, or higher taxes for the wealthy?  The Democrats' counter is always well, those are the rules of the game, and we're playing the game.  Money in politics is a legitimately concerning issue, but Democrats need to spare us the sanctimonious moralizing that they give mucho dinero out of the sheer kindness of their hearts.

Democrats love money in politics as much as Republicans, and they keep their sheep voters occupied with hating the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, which had nothing to do with campaign contributions; it had to do with the constitutionality of airing on television a Citizens United-produced documentary about Hillary Clinton before the 2008 Democratic Party primary.

Marxist warfare

Money in politics is more ammo in the Democrats' Marxist war of economic hate and envy.  President Trump's election, in large part, stemmed from small business owners and dirty-fingernails workers who have grown tired of the condescending "you didn't build that" remarks made famous by President Obama and U.S. senator Elizabeth Warren.  The super-rich do well no matter who's president, and they did extraordinarily well under Obama.  (Obama's net worth, it should be noted, is approximately $8 million; his net worth was around $1.7 million when first elected president, and his 2015 tax return showed an effective tax rate of around 19% – lower than Warren Buffett's secretary's!).  It's estimated that 90% of income gains went to the top 1% under Obama, who spent a cool $1.9 billion in his 2008 and 2012 campaigns.

Let's give "honorable mention" to Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, who is the fourth wealthiest billionaire in the world and a majority stakeholder in The New York Times Company.  Over the years, Slim, both personally and through his company, Telmex, has contributed millions to the Clinton Foundation.  All this means that Mr. Slim, a Mexican citizen, has heavily involved himself in American politics.  Sounds an awful lot like collusion, doesn't it?

The DMIC (of which Mr. Slim is a member) has carefully, and effectively, crafted a narrative that the GOP is the party of wealthy whites.  As usual with anything Democrat, the opposite is true: wealthy whites predominantly vote for and fund Democrats, and the top ten most expensive cities in America are populated by mostly white, limousine liberal Democrats.

Conversely, Democrat policies in the inner cities are guaranteed to fail.  Here's the proof.

But your Democrat friends and relatives knew all this from Bill Gates, Rachel Maddow, and Media Matters for America, right?  

Rich Logis is the host of The Rich Logis Show, at TheRichLogisShow.com, and author of the upcoming book 10 Warning Signs Your Child is Becoming a Democrat.  He can be found on Twitter at @RichLogis.

Image: MOs810 via Wikimedia Commons.

Though there are numerous questions I could ask to determine if a fellow American gets his "news" from the DMIC (Democrat Media Industrial Complex), I usually lead with this one: "What political party is the party of the wealthy?"

If the answer is "the Republican Party," I know that the individual is a regular consumer of DMIC propaganda.  It's tempting to get angered at the individual, but I know that two of the ways the DMIC lies are by distorting and withholding.

The Democratic Party is the party of the mega-, mega-wealthy.  This is one of the dangerous cover-ups of the DMIC.  Let's go to the tale of the tape.

Here are the top ten American billionaires, according to Forbes:

  1. Bill Gates, $86 billion
  2. Warren Buffet, $75.6
  3. Jeff Bezos, $72.8
  4. Mark Zuckerberg, $56.0
  5. Larry Ellison, $52.2
  6. Charles Koch, $48.3
  7. David Koch, $48.3
  8. Michael Bloomberg, $47.5
  9. Larry Page, $40.7
  10. Sergey Brin, $39.8

Well, well, well – look at all that wealth that could be redistributed!  The above wealth totals $567 billion.  The Ds above outnumber the Rs 7-3 (I counted the Kochs twice, even though they could be counted as one; the third is Ellison), with 74% of the wealth owned by the Democrats. 

Oh, the hypocrisy, the hypocrisy!  Perhaps you're asking yourself: What's my fair share of all those billions?

Democrats spread their wealth to other Democrats

Make no mistake: in addition to campaign contributions, which can be viewed at OpenSecrets.org (I have no affiliation), the Democrat billionaires do believe in wealth redistribution, which is why they've invested their monies across every Democrat-friendly industry – from media to technology to anti-Second Amendment groups.  It's the Democrats' (legal) version of a Madoff scheme.

In 2016, the Kochs – favorite targets of Democrats – spent over $31 million ($11 million to candidates and political action committees and $20 million on lobbying).  These big bucks certainly are not chump change, but they're ranked 39 among all donors to candidates and PACs and 27 among all lobbyist spending.

Whatever one's opinion of money in politics, in all its forms – soft, hard, dark, by individual, by family – it's indisputable that it is a wide and deep hole that both major parties have leveraged.

But why stop at the Democrat gazillionaires?  Let's take a look at other Democrat 1-Percenters.

I checked dollar amounts at the Federal Election Commission, where campaign contributions are tabulated (keep in mind that there is usually a lag in tabulations – sometimes up to a year due to off-year election years).  Here's a 2014 graph; there's some crossover, but the D contributions outnumber R by almost half a billion dollars, and this is over the last 25 years.

For 2016 federal contributions to organizations, seven of the top 10 (including number 1) went to Democrats, totaling over $300 million.

For 2016 federal contributions to individuals, six of the top 10 (including number 1) went to Democrats, totaling nearly $250 million.

In the 2016 Presidential election, President Trump spent $325 million; Clinton spent $563 million.

The Democrat myth of publicly financed elections

Does one really think Democrats want campaign finance reform, or publicly financed elections, or higher taxes for the wealthy?  The Democrats' counter is always well, those are the rules of the game, and we're playing the game.  Money in politics is a legitimately concerning issue, but Democrats need to spare us the sanctimonious moralizing that they give mucho dinero out of the sheer kindness of their hearts.

Democrats love money in politics as much as Republicans, and they keep their sheep voters occupied with hating the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, which had nothing to do with campaign contributions; it had to do with the constitutionality of airing on television a Citizens United-produced documentary about Hillary Clinton before the 2008 Democratic Party primary.

Marxist warfare

Money in politics is more ammo in the Democrats' Marxist war of economic hate and envy.  President Trump's election, in large part, stemmed from small business owners and dirty-fingernails workers who have grown tired of the condescending "you didn't build that" remarks made famous by President Obama and U.S. senator Elizabeth Warren.  The super-rich do well no matter who's president, and they did extraordinarily well under Obama.  (Obama's net worth, it should be noted, is approximately $8 million; his net worth was around $1.7 million when first elected president, and his 2015 tax return showed an effective tax rate of around 19% – lower than Warren Buffett's secretary's!).  It's estimated that 90% of income gains went to the top 1% under Obama, who spent a cool $1.9 billion in his 2008 and 2012 campaigns.

Let's give "honorable mention" to Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, who is the fourth wealthiest billionaire in the world and a majority stakeholder in The New York Times Company.  Over the years, Slim, both personally and through his company, Telmex, has contributed millions to the Clinton Foundation.  All this means that Mr. Slim, a Mexican citizen, has heavily involved himself in American politics.  Sounds an awful lot like collusion, doesn't it?

The DMIC (of which Mr. Slim is a member) has carefully, and effectively, crafted a narrative that the GOP is the party of wealthy whites.  As usual with anything Democrat, the opposite is true: wealthy whites predominantly vote for and fund Democrats, and the top ten most expensive cities in America are populated by mostly white, limousine liberal Democrats.

Conversely, Democrat policies in the inner cities are guaranteed to fail.  Here's the proof.

But your Democrat friends and relatives knew all this from Bill Gates, Rachel Maddow, and Media Matters for America, right?  

Rich Logis is the host of The Rich Logis Show, at TheRichLogisShow.com, and author of the upcoming book 10 Warning Signs Your Child is Becoming a Democrat.  He can be found on Twitter at @RichLogis.

Image: MOs810 via Wikimedia Commons.