Quantcast
More

SLIDESHOW: top 1 democrat or republican

Watch Video

Who is the REAL 1% Democrats or Republicans?

☆ElenaDiamond☆ 2012/07/16 13:48:29
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Lets just have a look shall we?

This is taken directly from forbes top 15 richest in America.

DEMOCRATS
D-Bill Gates 56 Billion

D- Warren Buffett $50.0 billion:

D- Lawrence Ellison $39.5 billion
D- Jim Walton 20.1 billion
D- Alice Walton 20 billion
D- S. Robson Walton 20 billion
I- Michael Bloomberg 18 billion (was a D for 20 yrs then became a RINO and is now an I):
D- Larry Page – Google – 15 billion
D- Sergey Brin – Google – 15 million

D to R – Sheldon Adelson – 14.7 billion is now 23 billion

D- George”Spooky Dude” Soros – Crime Inc,.14.2 billion
D- Mark Zuckerberg $13.5 billion
D- Dustin Moskovitz $2.7 billion
D- Sean Parker $1.6 billion
D- Peter Thiel $1.6 billion
D- Yuri Milner $1 billion
D- Eduardo Saverin $1.6 billion

REPUBLICAN
R- Michael Dell 14 billion
R- Charles Koch 21.5 billion
R- David Koch 21.5 bllion

What? You mean there are far more uber wealthy democrats than Republicans? NO Say it isn't so.


Examine this as well: 7of the top ten richest people in congress are ...... you guessed it. Democrats.



  1. Rep. Michael McCaul (R, Texas) – $294.21 Million
  2. Rep. Darrell Issa (R, CA) – $220.40 Million
  3. Sen. John Kerry (D, Mass) – $193.07 Million
  4. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, W. Vir.) – $81.63 Million
  5. Sen. Mark Warner (D, Vir.) – $76.30 Million
  6. Rep. Jared Polis (D, Colo) – $65.91 Million
  7. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D, New Jersey) – $55.07 Million
  8. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D, Conn.) – $52.93 Million
  9. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D, Calif) – $45.39 Million
  10. Rep. Vern Buchanan (R, Florida) – $44.39 Million


Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Will Advocate of PHAET 2012/07/16 14:17:19
    Democrats
    Will Advocate of  PHAET
    +8
    If we add all of them together, both Repubs and Dems, we get somewhere north of $350 billion. So even if we just take all of their money, we only get about 4 months paid down on this years deficit spending. If we let them keep their money and just raise their taxes how much good do you think that will do? The logic that we can tax our way out of this hole is nonexistent!

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

  • urban.legends.98892 2013/10/25 17:42:22
    Republicans
    urban.legends.98892
    Wow, just look at all the "class warfare Republicans" shamelessly hating on the top 1%
  • Zoomie 2012/07/16 16:58:47
    Republicans
    Zoomie
    +2
    I think if you actually mapped all the 1% (not just a selective top of the list, as this is just a fraction of a percent displayed here) you'd find them overwhemingly "R"..

    But more to the political point, a great many of those "D"'s are very open about their wealth, and have no problem supporting a tax increase on their wealth. Hell, Buffett has been calling for such a tax increase for years now!

    FYI, I was always impressed with Joe Biden, who after over 20 years in the US Senate still had a net worth of less than $300,000! Indeed, when he switched to the VP position, he was the 2nd poorest member of Congress dispite being there two decades!
    Contrast that with Denny Hastert, who made millions and passed bills that directly enriched him in his years in the House...and yes, I know of Democrats who've done the same thing.

    Oh, and I have a bit of a problem believing a Forbes list that lists the owners of WalMart as Democrats!!! If true, its clearly in name only, as their corporate shenanigans for decades now have NOT been in keeping with the values of the Democratic party, but are perfectly in tune with the social Darwinism of today's GOP.
  • Falcon Zoomie 2012/08/24 21:04:09
    Falcon
    +1
    I wish I could rave this more. They seem to be using the same kind of illogic they use when the deny global warming because it happens to be cold that day.
  • maclenfan Zoomie 2013/01/01 00:56:11
    maclenfan
    +7
    You point out that Biden has not saved his money, spent it like it would never end, wait it won't, he was in congress. Lifetime pension and benefits. The hollywood elite keep their money offshore as well, mostly democrats. Taxing will not solve the problem when the problem is spending. Men like Buffet give away most of their wealth when they realize they can't take it with them, Rockefeller and Carnegie did the same. I believe we should help people, but not support them cradle to grave.
  • Zoomie maclenfan 2013/01/03 19:52:46
    Zoomie
    Actually you're wrong, as I never pointed out "Biden has not saved his money." That seems to be your own ASSUmption (and you know what they say about people who "ASSUme"!

    Actually, Biden spend and ran up bills caused by medical expenses caused by the loss of his wife and child (his health insurance is the same as any Federal employee, so it comes with co-insurance costs, limitations, etc.).

    Hollywood elite? You mean the CONSERVATIVEs who own most of the studios? Like Fox? Hate to break it to you, but they're most Republicans (though as Mittens demonstrated, many do in fact keep their money offshore). As to the actors, well, there are a great many rightwing conservatives in Hollywood, too (or did you miss Clint talking to his empty chair at the GOP convention? It was the high point of the convention, I thought).

    Buffet has ALWAYS (as in for over 30 years) made clear that his kids get a small starter amount (far less than Mitten's kids got....ever read about where son Tag got most of the $30 million he needed to start up his "small" business?), and that the rest would go into philantropic activities he supports. Has nothing to do with "taking it with him" (an expression far more accurately descriptive of rightwing rich people that someone like Buffet). Ever visit his homes? No? Wel...


    Actually you're wrong, as I never pointed out "Biden has not saved his money." That seems to be your own ASSUmption (and you know what they say about people who "ASSUme"!

    Actually, Biden spend and ran up bills caused by medical expenses caused by the loss of his wife and child (his health insurance is the same as any Federal employee, so it comes with co-insurance costs, limitations, etc.).

    Hollywood elite? You mean the CONSERVATIVEs who own most of the studios? Like Fox? Hate to break it to you, but they're most Republicans (though as Mittens demonstrated, many do in fact keep their money offshore). As to the actors, well, there are a great many rightwing conservatives in Hollywood, too (or did you miss Clint talking to his empty chair at the GOP convention? It was the high point of the convention, I thought).

    Buffet has ALWAYS (as in for over 30 years) made clear that his kids get a small starter amount (far less than Mitten's kids got....ever read about where son Tag got most of the $30 million he needed to start up his "small" business?), and that the rest would go into philantropic activities he supports. Has nothing to do with "taking it with him" (an expression far more accurately descriptive of rightwing rich people that someone like Buffet). Ever visit his homes? No? Well, it isn't "homes" with an "s"; it's "home". It's out in the Regency neighborhood, about 10 miles from where I'm sitting. If you want to visit, you can drive up (no gates), knock on his door anytime. While Regency is a nice neighborhood, it's not palatial...not even the best neighborhood in Omaha any longer. Hell, ever Halloween, kids still trick-or-treat at his front door, and he actually gives candy to them himself. Wonder if Mittens has ever done that? Of course, it would be hard knowing which mansion he's living in from one week to the next.
    -- Quick aside: Republicans always love to gloat over a Democrat who fails to carry his "home" state, as with Gore and Tennessee...But Mittens is the first candidate to fail to carry TWO home states!!!! LOL!!!!

    I agree we don't and shouldn't support people cradle to grave. Who are we doing that to?
    (more)
  • TrueCon... Zoomie 2013/05/05 17:17:17
    TrueConservative
    +1
    Typical democrat brainwashed by the media. The buffet rule wouldn't raise buffets taxes at all lmao. He makes his money from capital gains. Its all a big show. Warren buffet owes over 1 billion dollars in back taxes.
  • MadMax ... TrueCon... 2013/08/23 19:06:16
    MadMax Viper
    +3
    Buffet evades taxes so it wouldn't matter how high they were..
  • MadMax ... Zoomie 2013/08/23 19:04:59
    MadMax Viper
    +3
    If you add up the total amount of net worth Democrats verses Republicans, you will see that the Democrats net worth far exceeds that of the Republicans, if you go back a few years to pre-recession and compare you will also find that the Democrats have shown and increase in their net worth by more than double that of the Republicans since then. Who loves a recession - democrats do!
  • Zoomie MadMax ... 2013/08/23 22:43:29
    Zoomie
    Difference isn't net worth (only a measurement of who invests better, really)...

    Difference is who supports fair taxation, as in progressive income taxes. And what you find, for example with Buffet and Gates, is a strong belief that since they've been so lucky and/or blessed, they have a greater responsibility to support this nation and its people.

    THAT is where the true difference comes in...
  • mmynhier Zoomie 2014/05/22 21:41:05
    mmynhier
    +3
    Do you have any "proof" that the 1% are overwhelmingly Republican? Too many times people throw out their opinion and state it like it is a fact. I'm not saying that you are wrong, I'm just saying that it would be nice if you actually had something to back up your opinion.

    Personally, where I live (which is slanted, I know), overwhelmingly the top money makers are Democrats or Liberals of some sort...I live in Los Angeles, CA. I know, though, that this is not the "norm" for America. So, where did you get your "fact" that the 1% is "overwhelmingly R"?

    I honestly think that most are apolitical. They contribute to both sides and support whomever can help their business the most. That is what makes them good business leaders.
  • Zoomie mmynhier 2014/05/24 05:23:32
    Zoomie
    Actually, I never claimed the top 1% were either party. There are both Dems and GOPers in the top 1%. Which account for more of it, I'm not sure. I do know that 6 of the 10 richest individuals in the U.S. are GOPers. But then, the two richest Americans are Dems! So I guess it mostly balances out.

    Which is why my point remains that the better measurement is their support of progressive taxation (which the Dem 1%ers overwhelming support, even calling for higher taxes on themselves).

    I'd also point out, at least in the last 10-15 years, the Dem 1%ers seem to mostly be putting their money into things intended to better the lives of people worldwide (Gates and Buffet, for example, donated literally billions to foundations that innoculate children in 3rd world nations, support educational activities, medical aid, etc.). Meanwhile, the GOP 1%ers have been pouring literally billions into winning elections and influencing political behavior (especially by GOP politicians). In the 2012 election, for example, the two Koch Bros. donated, directly and indirectly, over $400 million. By contrast, the GOP's perpetual villain, Soros, spent only $20 million. Indeed, the Koch Bros. alone in 2012 spent more than the nine largest unions combined on the election! Just yesterday, the Michigan House vo...
    Actually, I never claimed the top 1% were either party. There are both Dems and GOPers in the top 1%. Which account for more of it, I'm not sure. I do know that 6 of the 10 richest individuals in the U.S. are GOPers. But then, the two richest Americans are Dems! So I guess it mostly balances out.

    Which is why my point remains that the better measurement is their support of progressive taxation (which the Dem 1%ers overwhelming support, even calling for higher taxes on themselves).

    I'd also point out, at least in the last 10-15 years, the Dem 1%ers seem to mostly be putting their money into things intended to better the lives of people worldwide (Gates and Buffet, for example, donated literally billions to foundations that innoculate children in 3rd world nations, support educational activities, medical aid, etc.). Meanwhile, the GOP 1%ers have been pouring literally billions into winning elections and influencing political behavior (especially by GOP politicians). In the 2012 election, for example, the two Koch Bros. donated, directly and indirectly, over $400 million. By contrast, the GOP's perpetual villain, Soros, spent only $20 million. Indeed, the Koch Bros. alone in 2012 spent more than the nine largest unions combined on the election! Just yesterday, the Michigan House voted on a "grand bargain" which would save most of the pensions of Detroit retirees, one which virtually everyone involved agreed was a good deal for all. Yet, the Michigan papers were all pointing out that the Koch Bros. spent an estimated $20 million to try and pressure MI Republicans to vote against the deal, for no apparent reason as they stood to gain or lose nothing, no matter how the vote went. It was described by many a MI newspaper editor as "being mean, just for the sake of hurting the poor."
    (more)
  • Dwight 2012/07/16 16:24:50
    Democrats
    Dwight
    +2
    Jay Rockefeller = $61,632-$136,632= million and assets of $141,482= -
    Uncle David at $2.5 Billion+-

    John Kerry =$194,000+- and his wife at $1 Billion +-
    Both in office over 28 years.

    Nancy Pelosi = $35,500- $58 Million.

    It goeas on and on.
  • Zoomie Dwight 2013/01/03 19:41:16
    Zoomie
    Dwight - nice you point out most of Kerry's wealth is actually his wife's, not his...

    But you neglected to mention she inherited her wealth from her first (deceased) husband...a life-long REPUBLICAN!! LOL!!! And his wealth was mostly inherited (Heinz Ketchup ring a bell?)...

    FYI - Kerry's wife hasn't been "in office" over 28 years, as she's never been elected to public office. She was married to a Senator (Republican) who died, and then later married another Senator (Democrat). But that hardly puts her "in office."
  • Dwight Zoomie 2013/01/04 00:46:15
    Dwight
    Thanks for re-capping my post.

    The method their wealth was aquired s of little import.

    The point is, They Use The Tax Code To Maintain it!!!

    FYI, I never claimed Teressa had ever held office, just that the tax code John has been voting on, for Thirty Years, helps her maintain it.

    The Tax Code That John Has Railed Against For Thirty Years.

    It seems John & others have long claimed to be Taxing Hell out of Inherited Wealth. Yet their family members manage to hold on to it.
  • Zoomie Dwight 2014/05/24 05:37:52
    Zoomie
    Dwight, the only people who complain about "taxing the hell out of inherited wealth" are rich Republicans and their fans!

    Democrats, including John Kerry, have long favored a SLIGHTLY higher inheritance tax. Let's recall: that tax was 90% for decades!!! And, FYI, the rich remained rich, and even got richer, so the high rate hardly bankrupted anyone.
    From JFK to Reagan, that rate steadily dropped to about 55%. But in the Bush 2001/2003 tax cuts, it was phased out over 10 years, scheduled to be zero in 2011. That in turn was repealed in 2010, putting in a sliding rate that maxes out at 35%. That max rate was raised in 2012 to 40%, but the amount exempt from the inheritance tax was set at $5,000,000, and tied to inflation increases annually.

    The difference between a Republican and Democrat on taxes, like inheritance (but not limited to it) is that the GOP have some near-religious belief that the lower a tax rate is, the more revenue will be raised. In fact, it almost never works that way (exception is when the starting rate is exceptionally high, say, 90%, and you lower it to something like 40% or 50%), and explains in large part why deficits and debt always skyrocket under Republicans since Reagan took office. Democrats, by contrast, live up to the nickname Republicans gave them: "...
    Dwight, the only people who complain about "taxing the hell out of inherited wealth" are rich Republicans and their fans!

    Democrats, including John Kerry, have long favored a SLIGHTLY higher inheritance tax. Let's recall: that tax was 90% for decades!!! And, FYI, the rich remained rich, and even got richer, so the high rate hardly bankrupted anyone.
    From JFK to Reagan, that rate steadily dropped to about 55%. But in the Bush 2001/2003 tax cuts, it was phased out over 10 years, scheduled to be zero in 2011. That in turn was repealed in 2010, putting in a sliding rate that maxes out at 35%. That max rate was raised in 2012 to 40%, but the amount exempt from the inheritance tax was set at $5,000,000, and tied to inflation increases annually.

    The difference between a Republican and Democrat on taxes, like inheritance (but not limited to it) is that the GOP have some near-religious belief that the lower a tax rate is, the more revenue will be raised. In fact, it almost never works that way (exception is when the starting rate is exceptionally high, say, 90%, and you lower it to something like 40% or 50%), and explains in large part why deficits and debt always skyrocket under Republicans since Reagan took office. Democrats, by contrast, live up to the nickname Republicans gave them: "tax-and-spend" liberals (as in, Democrats will raise taxes to pay for what they spend). What's been obvious, especially in the Bush years, was that Republicans are actually "charge-and-spend" CONservatives, who will borrow to cover their bills!
    (more)
  • Dwight Zoomie 2014/05/24 05:49:54
    Dwight
    Democrats can afford to scream about raising inheritance tax's, they know they help write the damned rules so they can keep what they have. If you think Harry Reid or any of the rest are going to give up the wealth they've accumulated while in office, I'll sell you a bridge.
    They didn't loose anything while Clinton was prez, and they just had four years of owning both House's of congress. (And forget any thought Republicans stopped them. Hell, Republicans couldn't stop a damned thing between '08 and '10).Two of them with Obama in the Whitehouse. How much did they do to raise inheritance tax, or any other tax on wealth then?

    You are fool if you think they give a damn about taxing themselves.
  • Zoomie Dwight 2014/05/24 06:26:47
    Zoomie
    Well, your assertion the GOP couldn't stop anything between 2008-2010 is clearly a foolish claim. In case you missed those years, they're the one's where Mitch McConnell promised to obstruct and block EVERYTHING in an effort ensure Obama was a one-term President, and he followed through by setting the record for filibustering everything (so much so, that today the media never even mention that a bill is being filibustered, they simply tell us such-and-such a bill "failed to obtain the required 60 votes to pass the Senate.", as if 60 is the normal number, rather than the very recent GOP-set standard).

    And where did I ever say Democrats are going to "give up the wealth they accumulated while in office."? I said they would (if they could) tax themselves at higher rates than the GOP will allow (higher rates do not necessarily mean impoverishment, a point Warren Buffet keeps trying to make...his taxes could go up, considerably, and he'd STILL be one of the two richest men in America).

    And of course they didn't lose under Clinton! Clinton, GOP whining notwithstanding, was NEVER a liberal!!! LOL!! He's always been, and remains, a DLC, pro-corporate, pro-business Democrat!

    FYI - just to prove your final comment wrong. Had the Democrats done as you insist, they would NOT have repealed the...
    Well, your assertion the GOP couldn't stop anything between 2008-2010 is clearly a foolish claim. In case you missed those years, they're the one's where Mitch McConnell promised to obstruct and block EVERYTHING in an effort ensure Obama was a one-term President, and he followed through by setting the record for filibustering everything (so much so, that today the media never even mention that a bill is being filibustered, they simply tell us such-and-such a bill "failed to obtain the required 60 votes to pass the Senate.", as if 60 is the normal number, rather than the very recent GOP-set standard).

    And where did I ever say Democrats are going to "give up the wealth they accumulated while in office."? I said they would (if they could) tax themselves at higher rates than the GOP will allow (higher rates do not necessarily mean impoverishment, a point Warren Buffet keeps trying to make...his taxes could go up, considerably, and he'd STILL be one of the two richest men in America).

    And of course they didn't lose under Clinton! Clinton, GOP whining notwithstanding, was NEVER a liberal!!! LOL!! He's always been, and remains, a DLC, pro-corporate, pro-business Democrat!

    FYI - just to prove your final comment wrong. Had the Democrats done as you insist, they would NOT have repealed the inheritance tax cancellation from the 2001 Bush Tax cuts, which dropped the rate to zero. Instead, they DID cancel the tax cut (for inheritance taxes), thereby putting a 40% tax rate on those who die with more than $5 million in net worth. So who is the fool? The guy who points out your wrong in your comment, or the guy who makes the incorrect comment?
    (more)
  • Dwight Zoomie 2014/05/24 15:21:00
    Dwight
    Then please explain how Obamacare was passed without a GOP vote? One rep vote for the House version, but the version we have now passed an a stark party line vote.
    They could have passed nearly anything they wanted to. The idea anyone in either House was able to block or filibuster is indicative of a poor memory. The numbers for either did not exist until after the '10 midterm.

    If they wanted to they could do a lot of things. They do what they want. It's perfectly legal for any person of means to pay higher tax's if they want to. No one is ever persecuted for donating to the IRS.
    And charitable donations are legal as well. Care to investigate who in congress donates most to charity?

    As for the last, you do know about Tax Shelters, don't you? They are perfectly legal methods used to keep GovCo from getting most of your accumulated wealth. Those shelters are seldom if ever shut off when GovCo writes tax law.
    How do you think the rich kept their wealth with 90% tax brackets? How do you think the "1%" gets richer in spite of progressive tax rates?

    Harry Reid, jay Rockefeller and others can pretend to be friends of the poor while amassing millions, or keeping it. And folks like yourself think they stabbed the beast in the belly.
  • Zoomie Zoomie 2014/05/25 01:28:16
    Zoomie
    Oh, look! I hurt poor Dwight's feelings! So like all bad little wingnuts, he's blocked me for refusing to bow to his wingnut ideas!

    Apparently, Dwight, you have a problem with majority votes in the Congress, since you're upset the ACA passed with no GOP support.
    Now, little you write makes much sense, so I'm guessing about what you mean here...but...
    1) The GOP are using record numbers of filibusters in the Senate, literally triple the most the Democrats ever used (and still growing). They would have filibustered the ACA, but because it fell into the category of a budget bill, it could not be filibustered under what are called reconciliation rules. Straight majority voting applies (as it has for many, many years, including when the GOP controlled the Senate). The House is always a straight majority wins.
    2) The rich are getting richer at the fastest rate in U.S. history, surpassing even the so-called Gilded Age! And that is primarily because all the sorts of taxes the wealthy used to pay are no longer being paid, or at least no where near the rates they used to pay. If Congress returned rates to higher than they are (not the rates of the '50s, but certainly the rates of the '80s) and eliminated things like allowing hedge fund managers to claim all their income isn't income, but is instead capital gains, things like that.
    But, that would require the GOP to vote to raise taxes, and if the GOP hold ANY "religious" values, its that taxes are NEVER to be raised!
  • Prime Time Lime 2012/07/16 15:54:19
    Republicans
    Prime Time Lime
    I would really say they are equal as members of the 1%.Members of neither party has a monoply on riches,and the party one belongs to did not make them rich,so politics and wealth are not connected in this way.
  • kurtanderson1 2012/07/16 15:48:12
    Democrats
    kurtanderson1
    +5
    Obviously because now that they have all the money, they're f---ing it up for the rest of us.
  • DuncanONeil 2012/07/16 15:47:36
    Democrats
    DuncanONeil
    +2
    Unless there is some other evidence.
  • susan 2012/07/16 15:29:32
    Democrats
    susan
    +2
    Actually, the choice among the rich is not the principles and policies of the party, but who has the most power and influence, and can be bent to push through the laws that benefit them. Since the Democrats tend to campaign on "helping" the downtrodden, they have that image, and therefore get the votes of the masses, without actually having to live up to their promises.
    The Democrats have been in power more, have held Congress and the Presidency more often. Rich bankers and giant corporate types tend to associate themselves with the Democrats because that is where the power and the goodies are for them as well.
    In order to keep the populace convinced that the rich are Republicans, the Democrats keep beating that drum.
    Those who are well-off, the small business owners in private business, tend to be the real Republicans on principle.
  • Diane Spraggs Yates 2012/07/16 15:26:57
    Democrats
    Diane Spraggs Yates
    +3
    50% pay nothing !!!!!!
  • MadMax ... Diane S... 2013/08/23 19:16:22
    MadMax Viper
    +2
    a shared Ignorance of many is that "income" taxes are all taxes, forced inflationary taxes and F.I.C.A. is primarily paid by the poorest, perhaps a quick study of where and what our revenue is comprised of would alleviate the ignorance? Example: A typical 9 year old homeless child who just made $5 by picking up garbage takes that wealth and buys food, on average she has just contributed approximately 30% of her earnings to pay the offset of taxes, taxes which were passed to her by the company that manufactured, packaged and distributed that food. They're called liberal inflationary taxes and they are taxes on everything consumers buy. (maybe you can call them hidden ignoramus
    taxes)
  • Democrats
    One of Y'shua's,דָּנִיֵּאל
    +3
    but the REAL 1%-ers are the GOVT under BARRY's PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS, they control about 5% of the population as THE US GOVT's WORK-FORCE..not including the ARMED FORCES. That 6% control the rest of the 94%...under lock and key.via regulations, taxes and laws..
    WERE IS THE FREEDOM..lately NO WHERE and it continues to DWINDLE under this ISLAMIC COMMUNIST BIGOT aka BARRY SOETORO aka BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA..
  • Taxman 2012/07/16 15:22:18
    Democrats
    Taxman
    +3
    What I would also like to see is how much tax is paid by each of these individuals.
  • flaca BN-0 2012/07/16 15:17:16
    Democrats
    flaca BN-0
    So the claim that democrats are spongers and not job creators is a myth then?
    What's missing here is the fact that many of the democrat 1% agree they should pay more in taxes.
  • darcie ... flaca BN-0 2012/07/16 15:30:00
    darcie lamar
    +3
    No one is stopping them from giving the government their money.
  • TruBluTopaz 2012/07/16 15:05:09
    Democrats
    TruBluTopaz
    +3
    It's easy to be liberal when you have money to burn.
  • Diane S... TruBluT... 2012/07/16 15:23:10
    Diane Spraggs Yates
    +1
    spending tax payers moneymostly the middle class !!!!
  • darcie lamar 2012/07/16 14:52:48
    Democrats
    darcie lamar
    +4
    No one is stopping the dems from giving more money to the government to waste. The problem we have is the out of control spending and no one wants to address the elephant in the room. elephant in the room
  • freedom 2012/07/16 14:50:53
    Democrats
    freedom
    +1
    Although this list at link below shows it is more bi-partisan.
    http://governmentgonewild.org...
  • Seonag 2012/07/16 14:38:26
    Democrats
    Seonag
    +3
    But to hear the Democrats talk, they 1% are all Republicans! LOL
  • ☆ElenaD... Seonag 2012/07/16 14:39:31
    ☆ElenaDiamond☆
    +2
    I know, the republicans are not allowed to be wealthy only the democrats.
  • Kingarthurup 2012/07/16 14:24:57
    Democrats
    Kingarthurup
    +2
    If you didn't know this, than you are a libtard that abhors research and truth.

    http://funancials.biz/democra...
  • Will Advocate of PHAET 2012/07/16 14:17:19
    Democrats
    Will Advocate of  PHAET
    +8
    If we add all of them together, both Repubs and Dems, we get somewhere north of $350 billion. So even if we just take all of their money, we only get about 4 months paid down on this years deficit spending. If we let them keep their money and just raise their taxes how much good do you think that will do? The logic that we can tax our way out of this hole is nonexistent!
  • Grabitz 2012/07/16 14:08:39
    Democrats
    Grabitz
    +1
    So they all want to be charged more tax but the republicans isn't going to let government charge them more ? WHY ?
  • voice_matters 2012/07/16 14:06:16
    Democrats
    voice_matters
    +1
    just look at hollywood
  • ģhøṡτ øώl 2012/07/16 14:00:24
    Democrats
    ģhøṡτ øώl
    +3
    Government Workers are the true 1%.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/11/23 04:57:25

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals