report this ad
14.5 thousand views

The Real Party of the Rich: Democrats Have More Top Donors, Millionaires in Congress


Ever since Americans were old enough to crawl in front of a television set, they've been told that Republicans are the party of rich white guys, and Democrats are the champions of the poor.

Prepare to flip that thinking upside down. Results from an analysis based on Open Secrets reporting shows that the GOP has lost out to the Democrat Party in the eyes of fat cats by $416 million over the last 25 years. This chart comes via Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit:


If you want to see this chart a different way, you can check out Jim Geraghty's version at National Review. Prepare to see a lot of blue donkeys, because 20 of the top 32 donors lean Democrat, while only 6 lean Republican. The rest are on the fence.

Not only that, if you factor in all the indirect benefits the Democrat Party gets from the non-profit sector, left-wing activism, public and private sector unions, Wall Street banks, universities, and superfund contributors, it has been estimated by Dr. David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin in their book The New Leviathan that the Republican Party is outspent in politics by a factor of 7-to-1.

Bear this in mind when the left goes off on a tirade about the Koch Brothers bogeymen, who come in 59th on a list of top contributors. Public and private sector unions leave the Koch Brother's measly $18 million over 25 years in the dust.

For those “progressives” who are scratching your heads right now, this is very simple. The bigger the government, the easier it is for the increased power to be abused by moneyed interests. Growing the government doesn't change that fact; it only changes the people who become rich.

Lest there be any doubt about the new “party of the rich,” there are now more Democratic millionaires in Congress than Republican ones. Washington D.C. has become like a philosopher's stone, able to transform blunt force into billions of dollars for the well-connected. No wonder D.C. is the richest area in the country, and Obama's approval is sky-high there like nowhere else.

While the rich do get expense of the poor in a socialistic economic, a free market economy (not a corporatist one) allows the rich and poor to better their standards of living together. This isn't theoretical mumo-jumbo: the president admitted that 95% of income gains under his presidency have gone to the 1%, while the lowest-wage workers have found their wages decimated in Obama's “progressive” economy revolving around centralized government “action.”

This doesn't even touch the price inflation for such things as gasoline, groceries, and electricity under Obama, which further increases the squeeze and the demand for public “welfare” - a  safety net which can drag an economy down if jobs aren't created to support it.

This is the concern with the national debt, an addition of $6.7 trillion under Obama's presidency and on the way to $20 trillion total: it only buys time while the structural destruction continues eating away at the productive base of the economy. It is no surprise that economic growth under Democrat control has been paltry at best.

That hasn't rained on Wall Street's parade. No, while most of America is suffering, bankers are quite happy with their Democratic investment.

Obama Admits: 95% of Income Gains During My Presidency Went to Top 1%
report this ad
report this ad
report this ad