Listen to the gurgling, the bubbles bursting, as that sad little (argument) ship sinks. Part of that link from Matt deserves a direct quote:

"The top executives of America’s biggest companies are more willing to open their wallets for John McCain than his Democratic rival, donating 10 times as much to the Arizona senator’s campaign as to Barack Obama’s...

The presumptive GOP nominee has received $208,200 from the chief executive officers of the 100 biggest Fortune 500 corporations, according to a review of campaign finance reports. Obama has taken in $20,400 from the same group of people."

Now, I wonder:

1. If those CEOs of America's 100 biggest Fortune 500 corporations are part of "the very rich in America". I wonder how Mr. Adams is breaking down the idea of "the very rich," as I've only seen figures showing votes by income with the top category being $200K+/yr, with no more specific breakdown than that. Something tells me that, on average, these CEOs represent "the very rich" much more than the huge and not-exactly-pinpoint-specific group that is $200K+/yr. Indeed, they more likely represent "the latest batch of billionaires." Something tells me that they represent those guys (and a few gals) that rake in multi-millions or even billions every year.

2. Why would the CEOs contribute to McCain's campaign and then - if we're to believe the theory of Mr. Adams - vote for Obama? That certainly beggars belief, doesn't it?

3. What were those "very rich" CEOs supporting McCain for? Were they counting on him to provide "reduced competition" if elected?

4. Where does the "new money to rise up to challenge the latest batch of billionaires" exist, demographically speaking? Certainly, if it's someone who's trying to start a small business, those people could exist at almost any point along the socioeconomic spectrum, no? Looking at this chart, it seems that those making under $50K/yr. voted for Obama by even much larger margins (same with the $75-100K/yr. group). Any of these people in possession of an inspirational entrepreneurial spirit (and perhaps an Ayn Rand book or two) - some of them no doubt being the folks that so often call into Limbaugh's show and regale listeners with their spectacular rags-to-riches stories suitable for late-night infomercials (in order to instruct/warn us how the Mexicans are destroying America or that their welfare-leeching neighbor drives a Maserati, etc.) - seemed to prefer Obama, too. Strange world!

5. Why we were frequently told on this very blog that Obama's 7-point victory over McCain was not terribly significant, and quite far from any mandate, yet the 6-point preference for Obama within that vast group of $200K/yr. voters, is something that is supposed to tell us so much?

6. Why would the very rich prefer to vote for Obama since he made it very clear from the get-go that his tax plan would expect more from them than McCain's plan would (wealth redistribution, socialism, Communism, totalitarianism, etc.)?

7. Why we have been told so often on this very blog - especially in response to things like Thomas Frank's thesis in What's The Matter With Kansas? that low-income voters are irrational when they vote against their supposed class interests - that economics are not, and should not necessarily be, the primary driver of voter behavior? If that is true, why can't the "very rich", however loosely defined that category may be here, operate in a similarly defensible fashion? Perhaps they cared more about moral values, and voted against the fear-mongering, warmongering, obscurantist McCain-Palin ticket, even if it will (if the right-wing fearmongering is to be believed) make so many of these very rich people very poor in no time at all?

8. If one is to follow Mr. Adams in this line of reasoning, then how to explain the preference of "the very rich", defined in the exact same way, for Bush over Kerry by a margin of 63% - 35% ?? [Now THERE is a clear preference!] Why would the NLT bloggers have voted for the obviously anti-capitalist, anti-"liberty" candidate Bush?? (hardy har har)

9. Why the right is becoming so desperately delusional, and shrill?

Matt, that was a very nice post, btw.

9. Why the right is becoming so desperately delusional, and shrill?

Because the left and the president and the conggress are runing around like kids who have broken into the toy store and are running around and messing and breaking things that they have no idea how to put right again. The only trouble with this party is that when it is over we will have the hangover. and the toy store will be a toxic wasteland.

"The Rich" and high earners are not the same.

The "rich" have money (Inherited- see: Ted Kennedy and his motely family, John Kerry, Jay Rockefeller, etc ) and don't pay taxes on their principal, High earners work for their money (no matter what the jealous socialists think) and pay taxes.

That is why a democrat turd like Warren Buffet doesn't care about taxes --he even admitted that hjs secretary pays more taxes than him, and then again it is becoming apparent that most democrats don't seem to pay taxes either.

thedaddy

Re the link above.

Nothing like tooting your own horn

thedaddy

Wall Street is mostly Democratic now. CEO's are as wealthy as the finance types. The wealthiest Americans tend to vote for Obama.

P.S. The great expansion of the "Clinton" era, really began when the GOP too Congress--look at the year-to-year GDP numbers. The economy grew by 4 percent in Bush's last quarter, and then slowed down. It really took off after 1994. What were the key's to that expansion? Not passing the so-called "stimulous bill" in 1993, NAFTA, lighter regulation than the first President Bush was inclined to do, welfare reform (a GOP measure that Clinton finally signed before the 1996 election cycle, after vetoing a few times), stable money, and a capital gains tax cut.

That's not much of a rebuttal. "CEO's are as wealthy as the finance types." Huh??

Originally, you said "should we be surprised that he’s giving them what they most want: reduced competition."

Wouldn't the CEOs of the 100 biggest American corporations be the ones most likely to benefit from the (supposedly quite predictable) reduced competition that Obama is (supposedly) bringing on? And aren't people who support a campaign with large contributions the ones who are most likely going to expect to get something in return?

Further, there's this:

"Obama's tax plan will affect anyone — mostly the very rich — who works for a hedge fund or private equity firm and pays only a 15 percent capital-gains tax rate on much of the money brought home. Such people would pay ordinary income-tax rates, up to 39.6 percent, on everything...

...The top two federal income-tax brackets would rise to 36 percent and 39.6 percent from 33 percent and 35 percent, respectively...

People in the top two brackets will also pay more in taxes on their investments. The rate paid on capital gains and qualified dividends will rise to 20 percent from 15 percent. Middle-income families, or those in the 25 percent and 28 percent tax brackets, will still pay 15 percent."

(not to mention all of my questions that went unanswered)

Nothing you really say is wrong outside of the fact that can easily be countered by facts that support the right wing. It really seams as if this whole paradigm is a crappy movie where people argue all the time and then come to realize they really in love. I almost expect to see congress break into a west side story style musical number and magicly morph into one party. The only thing I would challenge is reading into the the combined donations of 200k. That seems like chump change with the crowd we are talking about.

The entire thing though about the rich voting for liberals should bring out some questions as to the validity of the entire right left thing. By the most base thinking should the liberal not have excess? Mabye keep 50k a year and give the rest to charity? I do think that the new taxes are going to be more of a burden on mid level players than the established order. Ironicly the old world order is the new world order and they want to basicly go back to an older world order. Taxes don't matter when you are richest of the rich, it is like being the guy with one eye in the land of the blind. Plus, this entire thing is based on the idea that the richest pay taxes, legally. Here is an example from history that I think is valid for the current situation: the oil depletion allowance. I think it cost billions in tax revenues over the years. This is government intervention that big bussiness loved and fought tooth and nail to keep.

I am confused.



And I had forgotten about how temp services, tax breaks for large corporations, and a low minimum wage kept massive companies from edging out localized competition in nearly every corner of the country. Man, I miss Reagan so much . . . He did so much for small businesses.

Brutus. Fair points. Mr. Scanlon can't seem to see the difference between the interests of corporations and the interests of CEOs, or between those rich enough to take care of their families for a generation or two and those who can think seriously of becoming an influential dynasty. Such simplification of class has been characteristic of the Left ever since Progressives started calling liberals "conservatives"--those who refused to see that liberalism had to change in light of changing circumstances.

Perhaps I could see the distinction you're attempting to draw if you could do so with something other than mud-like clarity.