Quantcast

Should The Rich Keep Bush Era Tax Breaks? Jon Kyl Says Yes

News 2010/07/13 13:00:00
Related Topics: Jon Kyl, Tax, Debt
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Jon Kyl (R-Ariz) is fighting for the rights of Americans truly impacted by the recession. In spite of economic data indicating that the gap between rich and poor has never been greater in the U.S.A, John Kyl has taken a courageous stand against removing Bush era tax cuts on those earning over a quarter of a million dollars a year, even if it means the nation goes further into debt.

Congress has been considering scrapping the Bush era tax breaks because there is no funding to pay for them and they only add to America's growing budget deficit. However John Kyl believes that this isn't a problem. "You should never raise taxes in order to cut taxes. Surely Congress has the authority, and it would be right to -- if we decide we want to cut taxes to spur the economy, not to have to raise taxes in order to offset those costs," he said during an interview with Fox News.

While Kyl fights to keep tax breaks in place for the richest in the country, Republicans continue to stonewall extending unemployment insurance, leaving many middle and lower class Americans laid off during the recession to scrape by on meager savings and the goodwill of other Americans.

This Darwinian approach to economic politics is not garnering many fans among Democrats. “Unpaid for tax cuts for the rich at the expense of working people is the same backward policy Republicans used to put the nation in this hole, and it's the same policy they promise to return to if put in a position of power again,” said Hari Sevugan, DNC press secretary.

Should The Rich Keep Their Tax Breaks?
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • WGN True~Male 2010/07/15 04:40:00
    WGN
    +1
    The rich have no intention of getting anybody out of any mess. They are in this for themselves. Any money that they get in tax breaks goes right back into investments to make more money. They create nothing.
  • Skip WGN 2010/07/22 00:20:26
    Skip
    But the poor, now there's a class of people that really can do something to grow this economy! Let's hear it for the poor! Yeahhhaaaaaaa! Go Poor! Go Poor! Go Poor! Go Poor!
  • trentin... luigi1-... 2010/07/13 23:18:58
    trentinafur
    +5
    I buy your answer: tax breaks for companies only if they add permanent jobs to their payroll. Adminstratively, this would be a bit of a challenge. But it makes sense in theory. But per my comment - without this - any tax cuts will flow to the bottom line, benefitting the shareholders (i.e., top mgmt, and big money interests). In other words, the rich get richer, the poor and unemployed...remain the poor and unemployed.
  • luigi1-... trentin... 2010/07/13 23:33:27 (edited)
    luigi1- in god we trust
    As the rich invest in corporate America, the companies have more collateral to borrow, grow & create jobs. It's a win win situation. A devistated Wall Street don't help.
  • WGN luigi1-... 2010/07/15 04:43:25
    WGN
    Except that the GNP has grown for the past four quarters and these companies have done no hiring. That makes the logic of your statement illogical.
    What they have done is to cut jobs to increase their bottom line, to increase dividends to their investors who are the rich. A vicious cycle of greed.
  • Skip trentin... 2010/07/14 01:22:49
    Skip
    Corporations don't pay taxes. If you need me to explain let me know.
  • trentin... Skip 2010/07/14 07:25:23
    trentinafur
    +1
    Huh?! Please do not waste board space explaining lies. I have worked in corporate finance for 25 years. And yes, corporations that earn profits pay taxes. Many find ways to shelter portions of income - via amortizations, tax loss carryforwards, transfer price mechanisms to move a % of income to lower tax rate countries. But even with such tax avoidance schemes, profitable companies STILL pay taxes. Corp tax codes have also changed over the years to do away with many of those shelters.

    Jeezus H....we need to increase taxes to improve our educational system, which apparently is failing!!
  • Skip trentin... 2010/07/15 00:36:02
    Skip
    You've worked in corporate finance for 25 years and you haven't figured out that corporations DON'T pay taxes yet? Here's how it works numb-nuts; We'll use Big Bad Oil as an example. Oil companies explore and drill for oil, refine the oil, sell the products for money. Through all of this the oil company may have a net profit of let's say 10%. We know it's not really that high but we'll use it because it gives us a round number. As consumers of the products we go to the gas station and buy 20 gallons of gas at $2.50/gal and it costs us $50.00. We'll ignore the state and local taxes we pay at the pump since the oil companies only collect those taxes as an agent for the state. Assuming that the oil company made a profit of 10% on the full $50.00 sale (which we know isn't the case since they pay for labor, rent, utilities etc. on the station) the profit to the oil company is $5.00.
    Now along comes the government and imposes a tax on oil company's profits of 10%. Does the oil company now make 0% on all the products they sell? Doesn't make much sense does it? They wouldn't be in business long if they did. What they do is simply raise the price of their gas. Instead of charging $2.50/gal they raise the price to $2.75/gal. Now when we buy our 20 gallons of gas it costs us $55.00 inste...



    You've worked in corporate finance for 25 years and you haven't figured out that corporations DON'T pay taxes yet? Here's how it works numb-nuts; We'll use Big Bad Oil as an example. Oil companies explore and drill for oil, refine the oil, sell the products for money. Through all of this the oil company may have a net profit of let's say 10%. We know it's not really that high but we'll use it because it gives us a round number. As consumers of the products we go to the gas station and buy 20 gallons of gas at $2.50/gal and it costs us $50.00. We'll ignore the state and local taxes we pay at the pump since the oil companies only collect those taxes as an agent for the state. Assuming that the oil company made a profit of 10% on the full $50.00 sale (which we know isn't the case since they pay for labor, rent, utilities etc. on the station) the profit to the oil company is $5.00.
    Now along comes the government and imposes a tax on oil company's profits of 10%. Does the oil company now make 0% on all the products they sell? Doesn't make much sense does it? They wouldn't be in business long if they did. What they do is simply raise the price of their gas. Instead of charging $2.50/gal they raise the price to $2.75/gal. Now when we buy our 20 gallons of gas it costs us $55.00 instead of $50.00. Now the oil company needs to pay $5.50 in taxes which reduces profit from $5.00/gal to $4.50/gal.

    Here's the big $$ question; Who paid $5.50 in taxes to the government? The corporation? No, it was the consumer. You would figure, since you have such a long career in "corporate finance" that companies don't stay in business for long when they don't make money. Their profitability is what determines their longevity and increased costs to produce their products can either be offset by an increase in price or a decrease in profit. Hence, corporations DO NOT PAY TAXES! The consumer pays them.

    I acknowledge that this example is very much simplified, but I thought it necessary since you wouldn't understand anything more detailed.
    (more)
  • trentin... Skip 2010/07/15 02:57:10
    trentinafur
    +2
    Your math is wrong, Skip.

    Using your example, the 10% tax SHOULD BE applied to the NET PROFIT BEFORE TAX - which is $5.00. So 10% of $5.00 = $0.50 of tax - leaving $4.50 of PROFIT AFTER TAX.

    Tax is NOT applied to GROSS REVENUES. You SAY that - so it appears you know that the tax should be applied to profits. But your math ("company now makes 0%...") shows you are applying the 10% to revenue.

    Our schools are failing us.....
  • Skip trentin... 2010/07/15 05:14:18
    Skip
    Your school failed you. I said that I wasn't accounting for other costs; "Assuming that the oil company made a profit of 10% on the full $50.00 sale (which we know isn't the case since they pay for labor, rent, utilities etc. on the station) the profit to the oil company is $5.00."

    Either you can't read, or you can't understand the object of the example I gave. You don't argue the point of the discussion. Like your first response to me you point out that I misspelled a word rather than address the issue. How about you respond to the assertion that the company doesn't pay taxes, taxes are passed on the the consumer. Where do you think the money a company comes from? Answer: The consumer.
  • trentin... Skip 2010/07/15 05:38:44
    trentinafur
    The definition of profit is after all expenses. Otherwise....it isn't profit.

    Profit AFTER ALL EXPENSES is what tax is based on. That will by definition - leave a PROFIT AFTER TAX - because taxes only take A PERCENTAGE OF THIS NUMBER.

    I cannot make it any simpler for you.

    In a competitive marketplace, sellers cannot automatically pass on cost/tax increases. In a competitive marketplace, sellers are PRICE TAKERS - not PRICE MAKERS. This applies to MOST markets. There are very few monopolies, who can dictate prices to buyers. Therefore, companies must 1) become more productive to reduce costs to try to maintain profits, 2) accept lower profits, or 3) some combination of the two. Prices can also be raised when the economy is overheated, and demand outstrips supply.

    Beyond that...I give up. You're pretty much hopeless.
  • Skip trentin... 2010/07/15 05:55:43 (edited)
    Skip
    Try telling me something that refutes what I said in the first place, I run my own business and I am well aware of my profit and what taxes I pay. None of this has anything to do with my assertion that companies don't pay taxes.

    …and you're pretty much stupid.

    Edit: Here is a link to an article that might show you what I have been unable to communicate to you:
    http://www.atr.org/corporatio...
  • WGN Skip 2010/07/15 04:48:11
    WGN
    Corporation do so pay taxes. Here are the tax rates for corporations.

    Corporate Income Tax Rates--2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005

    Taxable income over Not over Tax rate

    $ 0 $ 50,000 15%
    50,000 75,000 25%
    75,000 100,000 34%
    100,000 335,000 39%
    335,000 10,000,000 34%
    10,000,000 15,000,000 35%
    15,000,000 18,333,333 38%
    18,333,333 .......... 35%
  • Skip WGN 2010/07/15 05:30:26
    Skip
    The concept of corporations paying taxes has nothing to do with corporate tax rates, it's a debate regarding where the money comes from for the corporation to have to pay taxes. Here is a really simple example; if a company made $50,000.00 and had to pay $7,500.00 in taxes (based on your tables), this $7,500.00 is taken off their net income. This $7,500.00 is money that was obtained by selling the company's product/service to their customer. If the government then increases corporate tax rates (which is always an argument you hear from liberals) say by 5% and the company's net income is now taxed at 20%, the company isn't going to simply reduce their profit margin by 5%, they are going to pass the increased costs on to its customers. It doesn't make any difference if it's taxes, utilities, payroll, cost of goods, etc., the point is, the customer will always be the one to pay for any increase in expenses. Is that simple enough for you?

    BTW, your Corporate tax rates are for "C" Corporations, not Sub-chapter "S" corps. That does make a difference to the rates because the net income on "S" Corps. is taxed at the shareholder's 1040 rate which could be as high as the 35% going up to 39.6% if the Bush tax cuts expire.
  • WGN Skip 2010/07/15 04:48:36 (edited)
    WGN
    Corporations do so pay taxes.
    Corporate Income Tax Rates--2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005

    Taxable income over Not over Tax rate

    $ 0 $ 50,000 15%
    50,000 75,000 25%
    75,000 100,000 34%
    100,000 335,000 39%
    335,000 10,000,000 34%
    10,000,000 15,000,000 35%
    15,000,000 18,333,333 38%
    18,333,333 .......... 35%
  • JCD aka... luigi1-... 2010/07/13 23:41:20
    JCD aka "biz"
    "If not, tax 'em": that's an interesting idea.
  • Megajo luigi1-... 2010/07/14 00:23:00
    Megajo
    +1
    In fact, when was the last time you heard of a dedicated welfare recipient putting himself to work? IMO, we would do much better concentrating on getting "poor" people into the workforce rather than trying to figure out how to keep them content with "poor."
  • realist 2010/07/13 23:06:05
    No. Subsidizing the rich while the poor starve is wrong.
    realist
    +3
    this is just a republican grasping wildly with both hands to the "trickle down" economic structure. one that has never worked.
  • luigi1-... realist 2010/07/13 23:11:38
    luigi1- in god we trust
    +3
    No doubt, those on the dole are creating jobs, huh.

    The wealthy are the only ones that can put America back to work.
  • realist luigi1-... 2010/07/14 15:10:11
    realist
    +1
    that 5% already have money, so why aren't they creating jobs now?
  • trentin... luigi1-... 2010/07/15 05:42:17
    trentinafur
    Those on the dole are spending every penny they receive. Immediately. Which then circulates through the economy.

    So as a matter of fact - yes - those on the dole are creating jobs. More than the rich who are putting money into their piggy banks.
  • DougE realist 2010/07/13 23:24:54
    DougE
    really, how's your SUV bub? Folks like you like to bitch you don't have enough, but what have you done to earn?
  • realist DougE 2010/07/14 15:14:20
    realist
    actually, i'm not bitching. i would never wanna be that rich. i'm content with what i have. i'm also completely willing to share.

    what have i done to earn? worked like everyone else. didn't know i needed to do anything special.

    greed is a disease. one that'll probably destroy our species.
  • Skip realist 2010/07/14 01:37:36
    Skip
    +1
    Please explain how the "trickle up" economic theory works.
  • realist Skip 2010/07/14 15:18:14
    realist
    first, you explain to me why "trickle down" didn't
  • Skip realist 2010/07/15 01:03:58
    Skip
    It works every time. Here's an example of how Obama and other Democrats proved that it works.

    During the first few months of the government bailing out AIG and other financial institutions it was revealed that some of these companies, AIG and Citigroup were planning some conventions in Las Vegas. The President came out and said that it wasn't appropriate for these companies who had received government money, to be having these "frivolous" trips to Las Vegas. What was the result? Corporate travel to Las Vegas was cut buy virtually everyone which has created a higher unemployment rate in Nevada than other parts of the country. When people don't go to Las Vegas the hotels and casinos don't have revenue they need to keep their employees.

    If that's not a good enough example, here's another one. The Big Three auto executives travel to D.C. to be grilled by Congress about why they needed the bailout money. During the questioning some boneheaded congressman asked the executives how many of them flew to D.C. on a private jet. They all had. Then the guy asked how many of them were selling the private jet and flying back to Detroit on a commercial plane. None of them raised their hand. Now this may seem like it's a good thing that these guys not fly on private jets, but what happened was...



    It works every time. Here's an example of how Obama and other Democrats proved that it works.

    During the first few months of the government bailing out AIG and other financial institutions it was revealed that some of these companies, AIG and Citigroup were planning some conventions in Las Vegas. The President came out and said that it wasn't appropriate for these companies who had received government money, to be having these "frivolous" trips to Las Vegas. What was the result? Corporate travel to Las Vegas was cut buy virtually everyone which has created a higher unemployment rate in Nevada than other parts of the country. When people don't go to Las Vegas the hotels and casinos don't have revenue they need to keep their employees.

    If that's not a good enough example, here's another one. The Big Three auto executives travel to D.C. to be grilled by Congress about why they needed the bailout money. During the questioning some boneheaded congressman asked the executives how many of them flew to D.C. on a private jet. They all had. Then the guy asked how many of them were selling the private jet and flying back to Detroit on a commercial plane. None of them raised their hand. Now this may seem like it's a good thing that these guys not fly on private jets, but what happened was; Other large companies either cut back on their corporate jet flying or even sold the company plane. This created a domino effect which caused fewer airplane to be sold/built and thus the aircraft manufacturers had to lay off thousands of employees, companies had to lay off pilots, FBO's had to lay off mechanics, fuelers, etc.

    This is exactly how "trickle down" economics works. When people have money to spend, money in excess of the basic costs of living, they buy products that put people to work. It might be an airplane, a boat, motorcycle or a lawnmower. The concept of "trickle down" economics is provable and obvious. When "rich" people have money to spend it puts people to work. Everyone benefits when people have disposable income to spend on extra things. This is why cutting taxes on the rich is a better idea than government taking it to pay for pork projects. This is a far more efficient way to put people to work than for government to try and stimulate the economy.

    Now that I've answered your question, please explain how "trickle up" economics works. If you can.
    (more)
  • realist Skip 2010/07/15 04:46:25
    realist
    what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
  • Skip realist 2010/07/15 07:46:55
    Skip
    Your protest speaks so loudly it hurts my ears pusshead! You have absolutely zero idea what you could say regarding "trickle up" economics because it doesn't exist! Your are an ignorant, uneducated, un-useful idiot! At least there are some who engage in some rational discussion even though I might not agree with them they at least don't PRETEND to be something they aren't. Log off now, go learn to tie your shoes and later, after you can demonstrate the intelligence of at least a 5 year old, you might try and discuss the colors of the rainbow with someone. Until then, shut your face.
  • realist Skip 2010/07/22 01:50:51
    realist
    lol what a douche bag
  • WGN Skip 2010/07/15 05:00:19
    WGN
    Trickle down economics started with Reagan (also called VOODOO economics [by Bush I]) and doesn't work. The only thing it did was to make the rich richer, the poor poorer and start to destroy the middle class.

    The theory is that those with money invest in new factories, or technologies, etc. which make new jobs for the rest of us. They get richer and we get jobs.

    Reagan very significantly increased public expenditure, primarily the Department of Defense, which rose (in constant 2000 dollars) from $267.1 billion in 1980 (4.9% of GDP and 22.7% of public expenditure) to $393.1 billion in 1988 (5.8% of GDP and 27.3% of public expenditure); most of those years military spending was about 6% of GDP, exceeding this numbers in 4 different years.

    All these numbers had not been seen since the end of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War in 1973. In 1981, Reagan significantly reduced the maximum tax rate, which affected the very wealthy, and lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50%; in 1986 he further reduced the rate to 28%. As a result of all this, the budget deficit and federal debt increased considerably: debt grew from 33.3% of GDP in 1980 to 51.9% at the end of 1988 and the deficit increased from 2.7% in 1980 to more than double in 1983, when it reached 6%; in 1984, 1985 and ...





    Trickle down economics started with Reagan (also called VOODOO economics [by Bush I]) and doesn't work. The only thing it did was to make the rich richer, the poor poorer and start to destroy the middle class.

    The theory is that those with money invest in new factories, or technologies, etc. which make new jobs for the rest of us. They get richer and we get jobs.

    Reagan very significantly increased public expenditure, primarily the Department of Defense, which rose (in constant 2000 dollars) from $267.1 billion in 1980 (4.9% of GDP and 22.7% of public expenditure) to $393.1 billion in 1988 (5.8% of GDP and 27.3% of public expenditure); most of those years military spending was about 6% of GDP, exceeding this numbers in 4 different years.

    All these numbers had not been seen since the end of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War in 1973. In 1981, Reagan significantly reduced the maximum tax rate, which affected the very wealthy, and lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50%; in 1986 he further reduced the rate to 28%. As a result of all this, the budget deficit and federal debt increased considerably: debt grew from 33.3% of GDP in 1980 to 51.9% at the end of 1988 and the deficit increased from 2.7% in 1980 to more than double in 1983, when it reached 6%; in 1984, 1985 and 1986 it was around 5%.

    In order to cover new federal budget deficits, the United States borrowed heavily both domestically and abroad, raising the national debt from $700 billion to $3 trillion, and the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation. Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency.

    The number of Americans below the poverty level increased from 29.272 million in 1980 to 31.745 in 1988, which means that, as a percentage of the total population, it remained almost stationary, from 12.95% in 1980 to 13% in 1988. The poverty level for people under the age of 18 increased from 11.543 million in 1980 (18.3% of all child population) to 12.455 (19.5%) in 1988. In addition, the situation of low income groups was affected by the reduction of social spending. Inequality also increased.

    The share of total income going to the 5% highest-income households grew from 16.5% in 1980 to 18.3% in 1988 and the share of the highest fifth increased from 44.1% to 46.3% in same years. In contrast, the share of total income of the lowest fifth fell from 4.2% in 1980 to 3.8% in 1988 and the second poorest fifth from 10.2% to 9.6%.
    (more)
  • Skip WGN 2010/07/15 08:08:14
  • WGN Skip 2010/07/15 13:17:45
  • Skip WGN 2010/07/15 17:11:18
    Skip
    It's not what you know, you just need to know where to go so you can cut and paste.

    I'd love to pick through your comment but I just don't have the time. I need to get to work. But it is apparent that you are more likely to copy left-wing, anti-Reagan propaganda than you are to accept the fact that more people have accepted the Reagan model as successful than not.

    How did you develop the idea that there is something wrong with people making money? Your contempt of people with more money than you is really transparent. Can you really be that jealous of other people who might be more successful than you? Or is it that you are just too lazy to take responsibility for your own life and think government should take care of you? What courses do/did you teach? Anything to do with economics or government?
  • WGN Skip 2010/07/16 14:42:37
    WGN
    There is nothing wrong with people making money. I never said that. What is wrong is that people with so much money assert more control over the Government to skew things in their favor. It is the balance of power that the wealthy buy to allow them to make more money without restraint. Just look at the banking fiasco.
  • Skip WGN 2010/07/16 20:04:53
    Skip
    It seems to me that the REAL problem are the politicians who are void of ethics and morals that can be bought and paid for by special interest groups. How much control do Unions have over government? What about other special interest groups like, Environmentalists, Gay/Lesbian radicals, and Minority race-baiting groups like Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson? Do you not think these people have influence on government? Politicians have used class envy since the beginning of time as a method of gaining power over the people. It isn't necessarily the rich that are the problem, it's the rich, amoral politicians and their rich, radical friends that want power at any cost. They are the problem.

    The thing that really gets me is how those who advocate for more government control, bigger government, use the argument that government is supposed to protect people from abuse (from the rich for example) but it's government who, a) Inflicts more abuse and restrictions on people than the "rich" ever could, b) Uses race, sexual orientation, the "evil rich" and the environment to promote support for their increased power and control, and c) Take money from the same people who they accuse of causing all the problems, i.e. AIG, Goldman Sachs, Unions, Oil companies, etc.
  • WGN Skip 2010/07/17 01:09:15
    WGN
    But the government is controlled by the wealthy. The other groups you mention make noise, but the wealthy and the corporations spend more on lobbiests, and give more money to campaigns than any sothwer single group. What do you think Obama's bill to limit corporation campaign funding was about?
    Since the wealthy control the government, they also control the way that they are given privilege by that government.

    Top 25 Republican Party donors (1999-2003) with global consumer brands:

    1 Altria (formerly Philip Morris) $6.5m
    2 AT&T $5.36m
    3 Microsoft Corp. $5.12m
    4 United Parcel Services $4.48m
    5 MBNA $4.38m
    6 Citigroup $3.93m
    7 Pfizer $3.9m
    8 FedEx Corp. $3.4m
    9 Bristol-Myers Squibb $3.4m
    10 GlaxoSmithKline $3m
    11 Wal-Mart $2.85m
    12 General Electric $2.58m
    13 ExxonMobil $2.35m
    14 AOL Time Warner $2.31m
    15 Anheuser Busch $2.23m
    16 ChevronTexaco $2.2m
    17 PepsiCo $1.9m
    18 Schering Plough $1.8m
    19 Archer Daniels Midland $1.8m
    20 Wyeth (formerly American Home Products) $ 1.74m
    21 Alticor Inc. $1.7m
    22 American Airlines $1.62m
    23 Ford $1.52m
    24 BP Amoco $1.25m
    25 Disney $1.25m

    Political Campaign Contributors
    Ranked by Amount Contributed from 1999 - Present

    1. Bob Perry ... $17,387,800
    2. Edward Lamont ... $14,246,894
    3. Haim Saban ... $13,098,100
    4. John Raese ... $12,548,200
    5. James Pederson ... $11,710,474
    6. Stephen B...






















    &







    But the government is controlled by the wealthy. The other groups you mention make noise, but the wealthy and the corporations spend more on lobbiests, and give more money to campaigns than any sothwer single group. What do you think Obama's bill to limit corporation campaign funding was about?
    Since the wealthy control the government, they also control the way that they are given privilege by that government.

    Top 25 Republican Party donors (1999-2003) with global consumer brands:

    1 Altria (formerly Philip Morris) $6.5m
    2 AT&T $5.36m
    3 Microsoft Corp. $5.12m
    4 United Parcel Services $4.48m
    5 MBNA $4.38m
    6 Citigroup $3.93m
    7 Pfizer $3.9m
    8 FedEx Corp. $3.4m
    9 Bristol-Myers Squibb $3.4m
    10 GlaxoSmithKline $3m
    11 Wal-Mart $2.85m
    12 General Electric $2.58m
    13 ExxonMobil $2.35m
    14 AOL Time Warner $2.31m
    15 Anheuser Busch $2.23m
    16 ChevronTexaco $2.2m
    17 PepsiCo $1.9m
    18 Schering Plough $1.8m
    19 Archer Daniels Midland $1.8m
    20 Wyeth (formerly American Home Products) $ 1.74m
    21 Alticor Inc. $1.7m
    22 American Airlines $1.62m
    23 Ford $1.52m
    24 BP Amoco $1.25m
    25 Disney $1.25m

    Political Campaign Contributors
    Ranked by Amount Contributed from 1999 - Present

    1. Bob Perry ... $17,387,800
    2. Edward Lamont ... $14,246,894
    3. Haim Saban ... $13,098,100
    4. John Raese ... $12,548,200
    5. James Pederson ... $11,710,474
    6. Stephen Bing ... $10,054,093
    7. Fred Eychaner ... $8,014,646
    8. Richard Tarrant ... $7,083,800
    9. Steve Forbes ... $7,057,000
    10. Jared Polis ... $6,929,121
    11. Sandy Treadwell ... $5,942,321
    12. Harold Simmons ... $5,889,796
    13. Vernon Buchanan ... $5,382,144
    14. Dawn Arnall ... $5,381,850
    15. Joshua Rales ... $5,362,347
    16. Alex Spanos ... $5,293,556
    17. John Davis ... $4,871,992
    18. Boone Pickens ... $4,845,301
    19. Mitt Romney ... $4,548,635
    20. Fredric Eshelman ... $4,455,394
    21. John Templeton ... $4,375,411
    22. Wayne Hogan ... $4,351,322
    23. Peter Lewis ... $4,173,143
    24. Doug Ose Personal Funds ... $3,894,000
    25. Bernard Schwartz ... $3,736,700

    Bobby Jack Perry (a.k.a. Bob J. Perry) (born October 30, 1932), is a Houston, Texas homebuilder.

    Lamont is the great-grandson of former J.P. Morgan & Co. Chairman Thomas W. Lamont. His self-reported net worth lies somewhere between $90 million and $300 million.

    Haim Saban is an Israeli-American television and media proprietor. With an estimated current net worth of $2.8 billion, he is ranked by Forbes as the 102nd richest person in America.

    John Raese is president and CEO of Greer Industries, a steel and limestone producer. His business interests also include The Dominion Post (Morgantown),the West Virginia Radio Corporation, which owns 15 radio stations, and the MetroNews radio network serving 56 stations.

    Jim Pederson's net worth is valued at over $186 million.

    See what I mean?
    (more)
  • Skip WGN 2010/07/17 03:13:32 (edited)
    Skip
    Obama's bill to limit corporate campaign spending was nothing more than an effort to shut off donors to conservative politicians and at the same time do nothing to shut down Unions who predominantly contribute to Democrats. Why were they left out of the legislation?

    Something glaringly missing from your list is a comparison of Democratic contributors.

    I can play your game too.

    2008 Election Contribution by Democratic Committees

    Democratic National Cmte…$277,847,035
    Obama Victory Fund…$198,199,736
    Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte…$176,204,612
    Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte…$162,791,453
    Democratic Party of Ohio…$25,946,114
    Democratic Executive Cmte of Florida…$24,690,593
    Michigan Democratic State Central Cmte…$20,095,863
    Cmte for Change…$19,907,754
    Democratic Party of Virginia…$16,506,926
    Democratic Party of Pennsylvania…$15,023,848
    Democratic Party of North Carolina…$14,719,400
    Democratic Party of Colorado…$13,758,961
    Minnesota Democratic Farmer Labor Party…$12,358,089
    Dollars for Democrats…$11,937,666
    Missouri Democratic State Cmte…$11,135,567
    Democratic White House Victory Fund…$9,857,484
    Indiana Democratic Congresl Victory Cmte…$9,725,340
    Democratic Party of California…$9,029,997
    Democratic Party of Iowa…$8,761,686
    Democratic Party of Wisconsin…$8,734,766

    2008 Election According to Ind...




    &








    &



    &







    &
    &









    &





    &

    &







    &












    &


    &









    &










    Obama's bill to limit corporate campaign spending was nothing more than an effort to shut off donors to conservative politicians and at the same time do nothing to shut down Unions who predominantly contribute to Democrats. Why were they left out of the legislation?

    Something glaringly missing from your list is a comparison of Democratic contributors.

    I can play your game too.

    2008 Election Contribution by Democratic Committees

    Democratic National Cmte…$277,847,035
    Obama Victory Fund…$198,199,736
    Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte…$176,204,612
    Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte…$162,791,453
    Democratic Party of Ohio…$25,946,114
    Democratic Executive Cmte of Florida…$24,690,593
    Michigan Democratic State Central Cmte…$20,095,863
    Cmte for Change…$19,907,754
    Democratic Party of Virginia…$16,506,926
    Democratic Party of Pennsylvania…$15,023,848
    Democratic Party of North Carolina…$14,719,400
    Democratic Party of Colorado…$13,758,961
    Minnesota Democratic Farmer Labor Party…$12,358,089
    Dollars for Democrats…$11,937,666
    Missouri Democratic State Cmte…$11,135,567
    Democratic White House Victory Fund…$9,857,484
    Indiana Democratic Congresl Victory Cmte…$9,725,340
    Democratic Party of California…$9,029,997
    Democratic Party of Iowa…$8,761,686
    Democratic Party of Wisconsin…$8,734,766

    2008 Election According to Industries

    Candidate Committees…$65,320,571
    Lawyers/Law Firms…$46,582,516
    Retired…$44,150,764
    Securities & Investment…$39,905,842
    Real Estate…$22,131,219
    TV/Movies/Music…$13,990,551
    Business Services…$13,681,700
    Misc Finance…$11,385,941
    Education…$9,313,364
    Health Professionals…$9,076,139
    Misc Business…$8,472,928
    Computers/Internet…$8,299,658
    Printing & Publishing…$7,619,188
    Non-Profit Institutions…$6,600,954
    Lobbyists…$4,378,210
    Commercial Banks…$4,198,681
    Misc Manufacturing & Distributing…$4,038,753
    Civil Servants/Public Officials…$4,007,816
    Leadership PACs…$3,582,739
    Other…$3,543,935

    EDIT: Link to this table since it doesn't layout properly after posting.
    http://www.opensecrets.org/or...
    Dem Rep
    1 AT&T; Inc $45,083,314 44% 55%
    2 State, Cnty & Mun Empl $42,619,761 98% 1%
    3 ActBlue $39,955,241 99% 0%
    4 National Assn of Realtors $36,267,773 48% 51%
    5 Goldman Sachs $32,263,177 63% 36%
    6 Intl Brthrhd of Elec Workers $32,117,695 97% 2%
    7 American Assn for Justice $32,017,379 90% 8%
    8 N.E.A. $30,446,880 92% 6%
    9 Laborers Union $29,318,050 92% 7%
    10 Teamsters Union $28,444,184 93% 6%
    11 SEIU $28,349,982 95% 3%
    12 Carpenters & Joiners Union $28,024,933 89% 9%
    13 Amer Fed of Teachers $27,524,391 98% 0%
    14 Comm. Workers Amer. $27,423,296 99% 0%
    15 Citigroup Inc $27,318,698 50% 49%
    16 American Medical Assn $26,407,955 39% 60%
    17 United Auto Workers $26,241,902 98% 0%
    18 Mach & Aero. Workers Union $25,502,277 98% 0%
    19 National Auto Dealers Assn $24,828,758 32% 67%
    20 Food & Com.Workers Union $24,558,133 98% 1%
    21 United Parcel Service $24,546,110 36% 63%
    22 Altria Group $24,169,566 27% 72%
    23 American Bankers Assn $22,928,221 41% 58%
    24 Natnl Assn of Home Builders $22,473,155 36% 63%
    25 EMILY's List $21,939,688 99% 0%
    26 Ntnl. Beer Wholesalers Assn $21,528,095 32% 67%
    27 Microsoft Corp $20,583,253 53% 46%
    28 JPMorgan Chase & Co $20,420,253 51% 48%
    29 Time Warner $20,180,015 72% 27%
    30 Ntnl. Assn of Letter Carriers $19,841,434 88% 11%
    31 Morgan Stanley $19,595,360 45% 54%
    32 Verizon Communications $19,068,900 40% 58%
    33 Lockheed Martin $19,048,196 43% 56%
    34 General Electric $18,696,699 51% 48%
    35 Pfizer Inc $18,609,155 29% 70%
    36 AFL-CIO $18,315,746 95% 4%
    37 FedEx Corp $18,265,106 40% 59%
    38 Credit Union National Assn $17,878,728 48% 51%
    39 Bank of America $17,585,712 47% 52%
    40 National Rifle Assn $17,533,596 17% 82%
    41 Ernst & Young $17,424,077 44% 55%
    42 Sheet Metal Workers Union $17,063,813 97% 2%
    43 Blue Cross/Blue Shield $17,049,079 40% 59%
    44 Plumbers & Pipefitters Union $16,926,851 94% 5%
    45 American Dental Assn $16,918,029 46% 53%
    46 American Hospital Assn $16,828,229 53% 46%
    47 Intnl Assn of Fire Fighters $16,730,143 82% 17%
    48 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu $16,437,859 35% 64%
    49 Operating Engineers Union $16,398,515 85% 14%
    50 Air Line Pilots Assn $15,981,777 84% 15%
    51 PricewaterhouseCoopers $15...
    52 UBS AG $15,760,279 40% 58%
    53 AFLAC Inc $15,345,219 44% 55%
    54 Natl Assn/Ins & Fincl Advisors $15,290,354 42% 56%
    55 Boeing Co $14,605,058 47% 52%
    56 Union Pacific Corp $14,533,198 25% 74%
    57 Merrill Lynch $14,333,210 37% 61%
    58 United Steelworkers $13,988,901 99% 0%
    59 United Transportation Union $13,955,010 88% 10%
    60 Ironworkers Union $13,610,975 92% 7%

    You might notice that the predominance of contributions go to Democrats not Republicans.


    If you throw enough crap against the wall something might stick.
    (more)
  • WGN Skip 2010/07/17 19:41:13
    WGN
    It doesn't matter to whom the money was given. My list was of people who gave to both parties.
    The point was, and is, people with money are influencing the government more than they should be allowed to do, and in doing so are getting laws passed that protect their lifestyle and their money. That is why the tax cuts should be repealed.
  • Skip WGN 2010/07/18 01:09:33
    Skip
    I just posted another long message to bizutage01 that explains a little about my history. The bottom line is this, my wife and I make way less than $250,000.00, the limit Obama said wouldn't see our taxes raised by 'one dime", yet if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire our taxes will go up by about 30%. Everyone likes to demonize big companies and how much they influence politics, but the majority of employers in this country are small business owners who get hurt more disproportionately with high tax rates. You can argue all day long about % of GDP and tax rates for corporations and blah, blah, but all of that means crap when I know from personal experience what increased tax rates mean to me.

    Taxing the rich is nothing more than a phrase used to inflame class envy. You can't tax the rich enough to compensate for the multi-trillion dollars this administration is spending. They know it, I know it, and anyone with half a brain know's it. What I really find funny are the people that try and say that the poor pay more taxes than the rich. After all, the poor have a disproportional share of "Payroll" taxes than the rich do. What the heck are "Payroll" taxes? FICA? Medicare? Federal and State income taxes? It's all of the above. Sure, higher income wage earners have a cap on the...

    I just posted another long message to bizutage01 that explains a little about my history. The bottom line is this, my wife and I make way less than $250,000.00, the limit Obama said wouldn't see our taxes raised by 'one dime", yet if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire our taxes will go up by about 30%. Everyone likes to demonize big companies and how much they influence politics, but the majority of employers in this country are small business owners who get hurt more disproportionately with high tax rates. You can argue all day long about % of GDP and tax rates for corporations and blah, blah, but all of that means crap when I know from personal experience what increased tax rates mean to me.

    Taxing the rich is nothing more than a phrase used to inflame class envy. You can't tax the rich enough to compensate for the multi-trillion dollars this administration is spending. They know it, I know it, and anyone with half a brain know's it. What I really find funny are the people that try and say that the poor pay more taxes than the rich. After all, the poor have a disproportional share of "Payroll" taxes than the rich do. What the heck are "Payroll" taxes? FICA? Medicare? Federal and State income taxes? It's all of the above. Sure, higher income wage earners have a cap on the FICA they have withheld from their pay but that pales in comparison to the Federal and State tax rates that are "progressive" and penalize people for trying to make more money.

    All of the complaining about big companies contributing to politicians and gaining an unfair influence on government could be eliminated if, like I said before, we had honest politicians. Since those are few and far between, the second best tactic is to take control away from the government.
    (more)
  • WGN Skip 2010/07/18 15:39:01
    WGN
    +1
    On the other hand, my taxes in '09 went down on 4% more income and that is in the $110,000 range.
    Projections are one thing, and what occurs in fact, is another.
    It is not "class envy" on my part, but just good common sense based on reality.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/25 10:23:11

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals