The new CEO of Yahoo is a big Democratic fundraiser.
I keep linking to articles like this in order to present compelling evidence against the widely held belief that big business is Republican, or that the top elite rich people (and the new female CEO of Yahoo is certainly a member of this group) are Republican.
Although Republicans themselves stubbornly and self-destructively cling to the myth, because they keep pushing for tax breaks and other benefits for this supposed constituency.
There's one party -- the business party -- and Democrats and Republicans are subsidiaries.
I would expect tech companies to support Democrats. Big corporations donate to both, but tend to support Republicans more.
Posted by: The Real Vince | July 17, 2012 at 02:38 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2174810/The-cul-sac-stampede-A-herd-cows-tramples-quiet-street-leaving-trail-destruction-wake.html
Posted by: jd | July 17, 2012 at 02:56 PM
Oh well, jd, free fertiliser for the garden.
Posted by: dearieme | July 17, 2012 at 03:53 PM
Staunch Republicans like me do realize that the very rich lean Democratic, but we support low marginal tax rates on principle.
Posted by: Bostonian | July 17, 2012 at 05:04 PM
support a wealth tax
Posted by: Anonymous | July 17, 2012 at 06:05 PM
Wall Street is donating to Romney because Wall Street's politics tend to be either country club/yuppie Republican or, relatively, fiscally sane Democrat
These yuppie Republicans liked Clinton because the great pussyhound left the private sector alone, for the most part, and Clinton was good on cracking down on black crime.
Country Club Republicans trended Democrat because the GOP's social issues were a turn off to them and because they thought future Democrat presidents would handle NAM crime and the economy as well as Clinton.
Now that Obama is trying to undo Clinton's centrist legacy, the yuppie GOPers have come back home to a fellow Wall Street elitist in the form of Romney.
Welcome back.
Posted by: The Undiscovered Jew | July 17, 2012 at 06:40 PM
We already know that elitists are left wing Democrats with a Robin Hood complex. They want the govt to steal from the middle class to give to the poor. It's a classic pincer movement -- the top and bottom against the middle.
It's maddening to have the world's richest men ie. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, George Soros, Ted Turner and on and on portraying themselves as heros who "care" about the "downtrodden" while simultaneously doing everything they can to rig the system in their own favor.
Like Bostonian said, we support marginal tax rates on principle. Though I certainly wish there was a way to give them their comeuppance while not violating that principle. Unfortunately, "sticking it to the rich" has a tendency to backfire. Case in point, Eduardo Saverin and Denise Rich have both given up their US citizenship in favor of tax havens. Wealthy French are currently fleeing now that the socialists have upped the tax rates. And wealthy Chinese have been fleeing China for years. Wealthy people think about money the same way liberals think about race. The elitists say they want to help the poor and liberals say they want diversity. But as soon as it starts happening they run like hell.
[HS: Eduardo Saverin was never a real American to begin with; he is a really bad example. Most countries that rich people would feel comfortable moving to, like Europe or Australia, have even higher taxes than the US.]
Posted by: destructure | July 17, 2012 at 06:47 PM
Big companies generally support both parties -- it wouldn't be prudent to support just one. As for senior executives in tech, although there are some Republicans (e.g., Meg Whitman), they generally seem to vote Dem. I asked a prominent tech VC why he is going to vote for Obama, even though he thinks he's alarmed at the debt Obama has racked up, and is unimpressed by his economic stewardship so far, and his answer was this:
He's a social liberal, so he won't vote Republican, since he doesn't want to see more conservatives nominated to the Supreme Court. He considers himself a fiscal conservative, but he doesn't think either party will deal with the debt, so it's a wash.
I think the second point is clearly false: right now, the GOP is objectively more serious about doing something about the debt, and, thanks to the GOP, we have automatic spending cuts and tax increases set to kick on on January 1st, unless Congress agrees to a different sort of deficit reduction by then.
Posted by: DaveinHackensack | July 17, 2012 at 06:51 PM
When there's only two major parties and you have enough investment capital to influence policy, why wouldn't you fund both sides? This ensures that your interests are protected.
I'm surprised wealthy Jewish business men like George Soros, Eli Broad, Ralph Lauren and Larry Ellison are Democrats, because they have much more to gain by being Republicans.
Posted by: Lexus Liberal | July 17, 2012 at 07:07 PM
"Eduardo Saverin was never a real American to begin with; he is a really bad example." -- Half Sigma
I wouldn't exactly consider Denise Rich a "real American" either. The point is they both gave up US citizenship for economic reasons. People vote with their feet.
***
"Most countries that rich people would feel comfortable moving to, like Europe or Australia, have even higher taxes than the US." -- Half Sigma
How's that working out for them? Last time I looked their economies were worse than ours. You sound pro tax. But why? Do you think the govt is spending money on the right things? Or do you just like taxes on principle? I hate taxes. I see it as an abuse of govt power to take money from one person and give it to another. It punishes productivity while rewarding non productivity. Even worse, it encourages welfare whores and attracts 3rd world parasites. I'd rather burn the money than give it to them.
But you're slightly mistaken on tax rates. Most European countries have higher personal tax rates but lower corporate rates. But there are still several countries with lower rates for both. Which is why so many rich people immigrate to them. Australia, however, has slightly lower personal and significantly lower corporate tax rates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates
Posted by: destructure | July 17, 2012 at 07:54 PM
New CEO Marissa Mayer is also seven months preggo.
Posted by: Peter | July 17, 2012 at 09:57 PM
Only because politics is more racial, Romney still has a shot. He sucks as a politician though and may blow it. But I am still betting the White people turn out against Obama.
Posted by: eggwhite | July 17, 2012 at 10:09 PM
"There's one party -- the business party --"
The founding fathers wanted the country to be run for business interests. That's why voting in the first presidential elections was initially restricted to landowners.
"and Democrats and Republicans are subsidiaries."
The Republicans are the party of business interests, as they have been since 1865 when the Civil War ended in favor of Northern business interests.
The Democrats are the party of unelected bureaucracies that can't be held accountable for their actions, i.e., The Cathedral, i.e., the universities, the think tanks, the government worker unions, the newspapers, the environmentalists, the race hustlers, etc.
The long term way to defeat the Democrats is to defund the bureaucracies they represent like Scott Walker is doing, and not worrying too much about knocking out whatever thug the Democrats nominate for the White House every four years.
Posted by: The Undiscovered Jew | July 17, 2012 at 10:33 PM
"I wouldn't exactly consider Denise Rich a "real American" either. The point is they both gave up US citizenship for economic reasons."
We should encourage non-white immigrants to follow Saverin's and Rich's leads to renounce their citizenship in return for $100,000 per family member. For $100k better than 50% of nonwhite immigrants would move to their ancestral home country.
A non-white emigration buyout policy is a superior to a segregation policy (why give non-whites so much of the good land in the US by letting them segregate when they can just be given a check to leave and have whites take over their former neighborhoods?)
Posted by: The Undiscovered Jew | July 17, 2012 at 10:38 PM
Incidentally, I find it difficult to see the Mayer hire as anything other than a desperate plea from the Yahoo board for Google to buy them. "Please, please, please ... we doa'n wanna play anymo-ho-ho-horrrrrrrre".
Posted by: Twenty | July 18, 2012 at 01:16 AM
Data talks, anecdotes walk.
Posted by: TGGP | July 18, 2012 at 02:10 AM
Ideological cartography has graphs that show how different industries compare when it comes to political donations:
http://ideologicalcartography.com/2010/02/27/which-industries-are-polarized-and-which-are-just-polarizing/
The most Dem leaning ones are (as might be expected) motion pictures, publishing, professors, civil servants, lawyers and (less stereotypically) online computer services. The most Rep leaning ones are oil/gas, construction, autos, insurance, agriculture and building materials/equipment. Plenty of other industries are more ideologically divided.
Posted by: TGGP | July 18, 2012 at 02:18 AM
"I hate taxes. I see it as an abuse of govt power to take money from one person and give it to another. It punishes productivity while rewarding non productivity. Even worse, it encourages welfare whores and attracts 3rd world parasites. I'd rather burn the money than give it to them."
Every government expenditure is a tax. Every one, because it has to be funded whether directly or indirectly as deficit spending, which reduces the value of the money in your pocket over the long term. Saying you "hate taxes" means you are in favor of complete anarchy. Taxes don't necessarily punish productivity either. When the government spends money on roads, rail-lines, power plants, water treatment, armed forces, etc. those are clear examples of taxes creating a better business environment, and enhancing productivity. Taxes and welfare don't attract immigrants either, weak immigration laws do. We had far higher taxes in the 1950s than we do now, and far less immigration. I find the "anti-tax" crowd generally dishonest. Yes, you don't like your money going to lazy NAMs and immigrants. Fine, then have the balls to deal with the NAMs and immigration head on. Don't undermine America's infrastructure and fiscal policy simply because you are afraid of being called a racist.
Posted by: Peter A | July 18, 2012 at 04:55 AM
Big Business is definitely liberal. It has always been. The open question is whether it is out of self-interest (instead of fighting the State apparatus, they want to use it to further their interests) or altruism (they suffer from the "rich man's guilt").
The self-interest option makes sense logically, but I think it overestimates the intelligence, ruthlessness and amorality of the economic elites. In real life, rich men look more like Bill Gates (a timid nerd who feels guilt about his wealth and is under the influence of his wife) than Michael Corleone or Hyman Roth.
The Western bourgeoisie is genuinely liberal IMO. There is no conspiracy or secret hidden from everyone.
Posted by: Bekenstein | July 18, 2012 at 06:07 AM
"Every government expenditure is a tax." Peter A
Yes, I hate taxes. Sometimes they're a necessary evil. But more often than not they're an unnecessary evil. Don't try to hide the mountain of unnecessary expenditures behind a handful of necessary ones. Most of the ones you listed weren't necessary. At least not at the federal level. The only expenditure you mentioned that I support is national defense. And even that is 10X what it should be. We certainly don't need the federal government supplying infrastructure. If we did then our govt wouldn't be selling it off to foreign companies to pay down the debt.
***
"Taxes and welfare don't attract immigrants either, weak immigration laws do." Peter A
Welfare does attract immigrants. But our immigration laws are strong. What's weak is the enforcement.
***
"We had far higher taxes in the 1950s than we do now, and far less immigration." Peter A
A lot has changed since 1950. Two things in particular. Globalization and fertility.
***
"I find the "anti-tax" crowd generally dishonest. Yes, you don't like your money going to lazy NAMs and immigrants. Fine, then have the balls to deal with the NAMs and immigration head on. Don't undermine America's infrastructure and fiscal policy simply because you are afraid of being called a racist." Peter A
You can't read my mind but I'm happy to share my thoughts. I don't like taxes for economic reasons. I also don't like taxes for racial reasons. And I'm certainly not afraid of being called a "racist". It doesn't hurt my feelings at all. If someone calls me that then I'll tell them the same thing I'm telling you: http://goo.gl/P3uF1
Posted by: destructure | July 18, 2012 at 07:46 AM
"Eduardo Saverin was never a real American to begin with; he is a really bad example. Most countries that rich people would feel comfortable moving to, like Europe or Australia, have even higher taxes than the US".
Eduardo moved to Singapore, a non-White country. Is that a tell tale sign of something besides White men wanting Asian women?
I agree that he isn't your typical American. But I can make a case that NAMs are even more UnAmerican.
Posted by: Just Speculating | July 18, 2012 at 08:38 AM
@ TUJ
"A non-white emigration buyout policy is a superior to a segregation policy (why give non-whites so much of the good land in the US by letting them segregate when they can just be given a check to leave and have whites take over their former neighborhoods?"
Bad news here in NYC. The Liberals (including our farcical Repub Mayor Bloomberg), want to build more city housing for NAMs, when the city is already at its full capacity with public housing. Because of this, market rate rent will continue to skyrocket, and only the wealthiest SWPLs would really want to be here.
Posted by: Just Speculating | July 18, 2012 at 08:46 AM
"Yes, you don't like your money going to lazy NAMs and immigrants. Fine, then have the balls to deal with the NAMs and immigration head on. Don't undermine America's infrastructure and fiscal policy simply because you are afraid of being called a racist".
The problem with this is that most White Americans who see these problems aren't ruthless enough to deal with them. I hate to say it, but the NAM and immigration problem won't go away simply by whining or telling that to our bureaucrats.
[@ HS - Few days ago there was protest here in the city in front of a Hot & Crusty bakery. Rowdy Blacks NAMs demanded the corporate franchise hire them instead of Mexicans, unlike what you see in McDonalds. The franchise owner who happens to be White, also hires White college students, which is good news for many of us. I agree that their pizza sucks, but by having it staffed with efficient workers without entitlement issues makes the eating experience a lot more enjoyable.]
Posted by: Just Speculating | July 18, 2012 at 09:05 AM
"How's that working out for them? Last time I looked their economies were worse than ours." - destructure
Australia's economy is thriving as is northern Europe. You could cite natural resources but even then those economies are better off in other ways as well. Austarlia in particular is doing well.
Also I wanted to mention this in another thread but never got around to it. You have a rather funny worldview. You attacked another commentator for rejecting children and family to embrace a career yet you worship the market ad nauseum. You even said you'd be upset if your own son rejected family. Umm did it ever occur to you that the market is sending a feedback signal that children are worthless other than status symbols?
Posted by: Conquistador | July 18, 2012 at 02:24 PM
"Australia's economy is thriving as is northern Europe." -- Conquistador
I specifically mentioned Australia as having both a lower personal and corporate tax rate than the US. But even if that weren't the case there are other reasons for Australia's success. Namely, they are piggy backing off of China's economy. They're the ones supplying the raw materials for the products China is selling to the rest of the world.
As for Northern Europe, I wouldn't exactly call their economies "thriving". Though they're doing somewhat better than Southern Europe. In fact, Northern Europe is partially responsible for Southern Europe's problems in that the Euro has been advantageous for the North and disadvantageous to the South for economic reasons too complex for this comment.
"You attacked another commentator for rejecting children and family to embrace a career yet you worship the market ad nauseum." -- Conquistador
I wasn't aware you were such a strong supporter of feminism. Weren't you the guy who said a woman needed to be smacked around until she "learned some respect"? http://goo.gl/xzgY2
I don't "worship the market". I just recognize that the free market is more efficient and productive than a managed economy. That's a fairly mainstream view among economists. And its true whether women are in the workforce or not.
"Umm did it ever occur to you that the market is sending a feedback signal that children are worthless other than status symbols?" -- Conquistador
Yes, it has. But it's not a choice between a prosperous economy or replacement level fertility. The two aren't mutually exclusive. I would prefer a balanced approach.
Posted by: destructure | July 18, 2012 at 11:41 PM
I've had that "respect" comment thrown back at me on more than one occasion. Not at all surprising. Just ask Rush Limbaugh about the price you pay when you go after white women.
Men especially white men = maggots. Women especially white women = goddesses. Welcome to the United States of Shemerica
Posted by: Conquistador | July 19, 2012 at 02:54 AM
"Yes, it has. But it's not a choice between a prosperous economy or replacement level fertility. The two aren't mutually exclusive. I would prefer a balanced approach." - destructure
How? People prefer a life of comfort, leisure, luxury, and sex, over the resource intensive and time consuming task of raising kids. You sneer at Half Sigma's value transference talk yet won't accept market oriented outcomes in other areas. Moreover unless your kids are gonna be star athletes or whiz kids bound for the ivy league the return on investment is not worthwhile.
Posted by: Conquistador | July 19, 2012 at 03:02 AM
"I've had that "respect" comment thrown back at me on more than one occasion." -- Conquistador
Yeah. And I'll probably use it again, too.
"Men especially white men = maggots. Women especially white women = goddesses." -- Conquistador
You sound bitter.
Posted by: destructure | July 19, 2012 at 08:23 AM
"Yeah. And I'll probably use it again, too." - destructure
Don't be mistaken I'm not ashamed of my views at all unlike you despite your pseudo macho proclamations to the contrary. If you think you "got me" with that post or something think again.
"You sound bitter." - destructure
Should I be happy about abortion, single motherhood, government make work jobs, divorce rape, and useless degrees in vaginal theory? Boomer manginas abandoned the patriarchy.
Posted by: Conquistador | July 19, 2012 at 08:35 PM
"Bad news here in NYC. The Liberals (including our farcical Repub Mayor Bloomberg), want to build more city housing for NAMs, when the city is already at its full capacity with public housing. Because of this, market rate rent will continue to skyrocket, and only the wealthiest SWPLs would really want to be here."
If nonwhites were given $100k per family member to leave, housing prices would drop because more livable neighborhoods - even crowded ones like Manhattan - would be white and whites would move in.
Posted by: The Undiscovered Jew | July 19, 2012 at 11:28 PM
"How? People prefer a life of comfort, leisure, luxury, and sex, over the resource intensive and time consuming task of raising kids."
Do you have children?
Posted by: The Undiscovered Jew | July 19, 2012 at 11:29 PM
"Don't be mistaken I'm not ashamed of my views at all" -- Conquistador
I think you know that your comment wasn't right. But you're too stubborn and proud to walk it back. Which is why I enjoy tweaking you on it. haha
"Should I be happy about..." -- Conquistador
No. I don't disagree with your opinion on those issues. I even agree with you about boomers. But they're a natural consequence of our circumstances. To quote Bacon, "To command nature it must first be obeyed."
Posted by: destructure | July 20, 2012 at 12:29 AM
Actually, local and state taxes were lower in the 1950's and most people that were middle class pay lower taxes it was the wealthy that had the high rates but they got around paying the taxes in the 1950's by sheltering the wealth into trust funds and offshore them as well and putting them into foundations. Their are books on the massive tax evasion of the well too do when the rate was 70 to 90 percent.
Posted by: cynthia curran | July 20, 2012 at 04:03 AM