RE: [DMCForum] Re: Bill Clinton vs George Bush (The Younger)

["Dave Stragand" <dave.stragand@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Oil companies are owned by... you & me.  They are corporations.  They are in
your 401k, your insurance, your mutual funds...
 
Anyone unhappy about oil company profits should simply buy oil company
stocks!  You winn NOT beat them, so join them!  
 
In general, liberals have great anger/jealousy about anyone who has money or
makes a lot of it... very 'us vs. them' mentality.  Strange thing though,
since the richest U.S. Senators and Congressmen all just happen to be
Democrats...
 
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/fat_cats_washington_times.guest.html
 
So much for Republicans being the party of the wealthy. According to a new
study by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, that moniker more
appropriately belongs to the Democrats. "Republicans raised more than
Democrats from individuals who contributed small and medium amounts of money
during the 2002 election cycle," the report notes, "but Democrats far
outpaced Republicans among deep-pocketed givers." Among donors who gave more
than $200 but less than $1,000, Republicans enjoyed a substantial $68
million to $44 million edge over Democrats. The margin was closer among
those individuals who gave $1,000 or more: The GOP took in $317 million,
compared to the Democrats' $307 million. 

But among the fabulously wealthy, the Democrats cleaned house. Donors of
$10,000 or more gave $140 million to Democrats, while only $111 million went
to Republicans. Among those individuals who gave $100,000 or more, the
Democrats raised $72 million compared to the Republicans' $34 million. And
when it comes to the millionaires' club - those kicking in $1 million or
more - the Democratic Party skunked the GOP, $36 million to $3 million.
Needless to say, despite the near-parity in overall amounts - $384 million
to the Republicans vs. $350 million to the Democrats - the number of
individual donors to the GOP exceeded those to the Democratic Party by more
than 40 percent. 

In other words, in 2002 a select group of bigwigs dumped big money into
Democratic causes, while a broad base of folks donated respectable [but not
overwhelming] amounts to Republican candidates. That goes a long way toward
explaining the Democrats' shallow support in the midterm elections, and
should give an indication of which party's agenda has been hijacked by the
big money-men. 

But it also sheds light on the president's first round of tax cuts -
arguably the highest-profile domestic referendum in the midterm elections.
We can't help but notice that only those who are so stinking rich that money
doesn't matter supported the Democrats' opposition to tax cuts. Meanwhile,
the many more who form the backbone of America's economy supported the
Republicans. As the White House and congressional Republicans prepare a new
tax package, we hope they bear that in mind. And just to show that there are
no hard feelings, we'll still support tax cuts for the limousine liberals.
With all that extra change in their pockets, maybe they'll put it to more
productive uses than propping up the rejected policies of the Democratic
Party.

-----Original Message-----
From: malevy_nj [mailto:malevy_nj@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 12:17 AM
To: DMCForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [DMCForum] Re: Bill Clinton vs George Bush (The Younger)


Yea, amazing with all that at his finger tips, and he still fucks 
everything up...

But, his Oil buddies are making plenty of money!  What did you pay 
for gas this week?



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT

---

Yahoo! Groups Links

• To visit your group on the web, go to:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DMCForum/
   
• To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  DMCForum-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   
• Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.