Good god, Wenzel, clean that up.
Well, geez, Bob. If THAT'S the case, then why the 30 billionaires who have donated to Obama?Obama is a Democrat! Therefore, he's on OUR side, fighting for the little guy against the evil, Republican-connected, monolithic interests of the super-rich! Q-E-frickin-D!!!Signed,Drinkin' the Kool-Aid.
Now, show us how many non-billionaires contributed to each one.
Which is hilarious because the common call amongst the social democratic types is that his unrestricted free market ideology would be the biggest benefit to the rich. Obviously, anyone with a basic understanding of economics knows that's utter bullshit, but that's what makes these figures so interesting.
Crony Capitalists sleep well at night knowing that the public is trained to call for more government regulation of businesses.They fear the most stringent regulator of all...the market...who cares not how much money you have, nor who you know.The proponent of market regulation (Ron Paul) sees not a dime from them.
Let me add...if Ron Paul did get a donation from a billionaire, he would take it. And then do his own thing as usual. That is why lobbies and people who want something done for them by government don't go to him...no return on their investment.
Is there a more detailed list so we can look for the more interesting names?
Maybe Santorum is the next best pick then. According to your chart.:)
The problem is that the names would start to become very familar the guy who supports Santorum also gave a pile to Perry and Bachmann while another donated to Romney, Barry and Gingrich
This graph alone is reason enough to support RP. He is the one person the fascist elite don't want in power!
This is absurd. Peter Thiel donated $2.6 million to Paul's campaign via a super pac. And to the free market ideologues commenting above, how is that basic economics would tell us that free markets do not benefit the rich? Look at history: during the last 30 years, productivity for American workers has increased over 80% but their share of the national income has been stagnant. Why, because 85% of all income gains in the last 30 years have gone to the top 1%, whose income has increased by over 250% in this period. Hmm, most deregulated, free market period in last 50 years has increased income inequality to levels not seen since the last period of laissez-faire capitalism (1929). What your libertarian, free market perspective fails to grasp is POWER, the power to shape rules about the distribution of income through tax policy, wage rates, trade policy, etc. The rich use their economic power to open markets that then serve to smack down labor and the middle class. Markets do not exist in some fantasy vacuum, but in a world of power too. Think!
"Hmm, most deregulated, free market period in last 50 years has increased income inequality to levels not seen since the last period of laissez-faire capitalism (1929)."Personal foul, offense, making a completely false statement. 5 yard penalty. Repeat 1st down.8 month delay of game, offense, penalty is declined.Thinkin, the free market we have today has far more regulation and government control over it then we had 50 years ago. To claim otherwise shows you have no clue. We did have some brief deregulation periods starting with Carter(not Reagan) but that was a dip in the other direction and the momentum did not carry for long.The rich are getting richer because they use that regulation and government interference with the free market to make themselves richer at the expense of the rest of us.