Top CEOs give 10 times more to McCain than to Obama
What does this say?
NPR-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.
Obama’s campaign seized on the findings of The Hill’s review of campaign finance records to suggest that the gap was due to “special favors” McCain has given corporations.
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.
“It is not surprising that a Washington celebrity like John McCain would be able to collect contributions based on 26 years of special favors provided to individual businesses,” said Jason Furman, Obama’s economic policy director.
August 19th, 2008 at 8:11 am
Contrary to the guy in the article, the donations don’t suggest that McCain is in the pocket of anyone. He simply doesn’t agree with the idea of taking from the rich and giving to the poor.
August 19th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
McCain believes in free (and unfair trade), unbridled legal and illegal immigration, job outsourcing, and all this to be paid on the backs of the middle class taxpayer. According to a GAO, 71% of large foreign corporations and 54% of large US corporations reported paying no taxes at least one year. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08957.pdf
Its just pay off to continue the corruption, at the expense of the US citizen.
I would rather a politician pander to the poor or underemployed than the corrupt.
August 19th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
GaPatriot,
Question: Does that 71% of larger corporations not paying taxes include, say, General Motors ($10.6 billion loss)?
Answer: Yes.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
“What does this say?”
That rich folk would prefer a criminal in the White House.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:12 am
CM
How much more blind can you be? If candidate A wants to tax people who grow apples and candidate B doesn’t, apples growers probably won’t vote for candidate A. I know it’s easy to villify the haves and pity the have-nots, but come on.
August 20th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Aubrey, how much more blind could you be?
McCain is one of the Keating Five.
He’s already demonstrated that he will cost the taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars in financial scams.
Of course this probably elevates him in your esteem. Sometimes I forget the nature of the Republican party.
BTW, our debt burden isn’t going to pay for itself. Someone needs to kick in, and I have no problem putting the majority of that burden on those who benefitted disproportionately over that last 8 years.
August 20th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
I imagine that if our friend and local economist David cares to chip in, he’ll agree with me that one way in which to discourage a behavior is to tax said behavior.
That said, why would we ever want to tax those who own businesses and create wealth? It makes no sense, when the goal is to generate greater tax revenue, to tax the cogs of the commercial machine into a state of inoperation!
McCain was absolved by the prosecutor of that scandal, by the way. Don’t know if you got the memo. Oh, by the bye, what’s the deal with Tony Resco?
August 20th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
“Top CEOs give 10 times more to McCain than to Obama”
Goes to prove that even top CEOs make bad investments.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Aubrey
Taxation is indeed used to modify behavior, usually unintentionally.
Low taxes on gasoline, for example, encourage people to drive silly SUVs in America, whereas higher taxes on “petrol” in Europe and elsewhere encourage people to conserve scarce resources, and the environment.
.
Why tax? Because there are some services that we, as a society, decided should best be provided by the public sector. We all use police, so we all pay for it.
.
Why tax business? Because it is a very easy target. Businesses don’t vote; people vote (occasionally).
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Regarding Tony “Resco” (Rezko, actually), didn’t you get the memo?
Here’s the up-shot:
“At the point where he was engaging in alleged wrongdoing, it had nothing to do with me, and nobody has made that allegation.” (Sen. Obama, Jan 23, 2008)
And
“Well, my relationship is he was somebody who I knew and had been a supporter for many years. He was somebody who had supported a wide range of candidates all throughout Illinois. Nobody had an inkling that he was involved in any problems. When those problems were discovered, we returned money from him that had been contributed. And what is true is that I also purchased a piece of land from him. Everything was above board, and there’s been no allegations that there wasn’t.” (Sen. Obama, Jan 23, 2008)
Oh, and there is ample proof that the real estate deal was completely above board. All you have to do is look at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Rezko), rather than try to smear someone.
August 20th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
“That said, why would we ever want to tax those who own businesses and create wealth?”
When we are running a fiscal deficit (with no end in sight), I have no problem whatsoever with increasing the capital gains tax on wealthy individuals. They aren’t laboring for their wealth, and I won’t lose any sleep if they can’t afford to maintain their fourth home in the Caymans. Sorry to disappoint you Aubrey, but I would rather have rich folk kick in and pay rather than passing the debt on to our children.
But hey, that’s just me. I’m not a huge admirer of those who game the financial system to amass wealth, usually at the expense of others (taxpayers).
“McCain was absolved by the prosecutor of that scandal, by the way.”
McCain was criticized by the Senate Ethics Committee for exercising “poor judgment” when he met with the federal regulators on Keating’s behalf.
Yeah, that sounds like a great endorsement for president.
Republicans in ‘08, “poor judgement” is our middle name!
August 21st, 2008 at 7:49 am
CM
I agree that any sort of spending deficit (that has no end in sight) moves the balance sheet in the wrong direction. My idea, instead of heaping the spending bill on the shoulders of those who already shoulder the load, is to cut the spending.
I think that the economic tactic that was used in South American countries (I can’t remember what it was called, exactly) where the gov’t doesn’t spend more money than it takes in in taxes (shock therapy?) is the way to go here, too.
Also, the “poor judgement” mud sticks to Obama just a bit better. The guy’s been on the political scene for a handful of years and has more skeletons than Ted Kennedy and more gaffes than Don Imus could dream of. I’m not crazy about McCain. He wasn’t my first, second, or even my third choice. But he’s a whole sight better than Barry’s socialism, defeatism, and blame America philosophy.