How LIBERAL can the ULTRA wealthy be? Who is the most progressive tycoon with influence and why?

[reddread]

thanks.

[pipoman]

1. I believe those wealthy who are liberal are usually 2nd

3rd generation wealth or higher.

[JaneyVee]

2. Obama won 8 out of 10 of the wealthiest counties in America.

[JustAnotherGen]

3. Hard to say it but -

I moved from Somerset which went for him - to Hunterdon which did not - in October last year. What a difference 10 miles makes. Seriously - ten miles makes the difference in mentality in America.

[Drunken Irishman]

15. But also lost the $100,000+ vote by 10% to Romney.

My guess is that the higher up you go, the higher percentage of support Romney received.

[WatermelonRat]

4. Off the top of my head...

Warren Buffett, Tom Steyer, and George Soros.

[Atman]

5. Doesn't George Soros run everything?

That's all I hear when I read Media Matters or any right-winger's comments online. We're all beholden to George Soros. Fox "News" says so. Seriously...Koch Brothers don't exist, Fox "News" doesn't lie, but George Soros rules the entire world. Have you ever actually heard anything from Soros? Seems like if he was as powerful as they say he'd actually be doing something, right?

[blm]

9. Yep - RW see Soros's few million everywhere and IGNORE the billions from a Korean cult leader, an

Australian extortionist, and a Saudi royal who have controlled the bulk of the RW 'news' media, GOP talking points, and RW propaganda since the early 80s.

[MO_Moderate]

6. Not liberal at all

[steve2470]

7. progressive democrat

George Soros for most progressive tycoon.

[Orsino]

8. I suppose that if you can afford a sufficiently large wood chipper and pump...

...that camel will flow right through the eye.

[octoberlib]

10. Arnold Hiatt of Stride Rite. And George Soros , of course.

Arnold Hiatt is an American businessman notable for having been the president of the Stride Rite footwear company. In addition, he is notable for having been a large contributor to political campaigns[1] for the Democratic Party[2] as well as being a voice calling for money to get out of politics. He has called for serious electoral reform and public financing of elections.[2][3] Hiatt has been consistently praised by Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Lessig for his stance on electoral reform.[4]


According to Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Lessig, in 1996 Hiatt advocated to then-president Bill Clinton that the president work hard to try to end "private funding of public elections", but Hiatt was repudiated by Clinton.[
6][7] In 2007, Hiatt wrote:
Clearly, the way we finance elections is undermining our democracy. The current campaign finance system forces good people to spend far too much time talking to narrow slices of our society and at the expense of focusing on the nation's business. Only the wealthiest citizens or special interests can provide the enormous amounts of money required to run for or stay in office. Even the most trusting among us must recognize the potentially corrupting incentives that this creates.
—Arnold Hiatt, writing in the Boston Globe, 2007[3]
Hiatt has urged passage of the Senate Fair Elections Now Act introduced by Senators Dick Durbin and Arlen Specter, which is a bipartisan proposal to raise a "large number of small donations to show their credibility with the public" before qualifying for public funding for their campaigns.[3]
My own special interest is to get special-interest money out of the political process. The influence of that money indirectly costs taxpayers far more than the costs of liberating the electoral process from the special-interest lobbyists.
—Arnold Hiatt, 2007[3]




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Hiatt

[Bluenorthwest]

11. What's 'ULTRA' wealthy? Multiple billions only?

There are lots of very wealthy and very progressive people with hundreds of millions of dollars.
In my experience modifiers like 'mega' and 'ultra' are usually used by very rich people to explain that they are in fact just 'well off'. They stammer 'well we are not mega rich, that's for sure!' when they slip up and call themselves rich.

[reddread]

12. as in not lots of them, the toppermost, the apex predators

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_prominent_peak

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Census_income_discrepancies.png

essentially, the ones who absolutely get a say in how things are done.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. That's not an answer at all. If by 'mega wealthy' you mean 'predators' then your

question is already answered. But the question was not about wealth. You are not actually asking a question, but advocating a point of view. It's not as fun as actual discussion.

[reddread]

14. please use my words when quoting

I think there has been good discussion, and I think you are slanting and advocating.
I was simply trying to clarify in response to your question, what segment is "ULTRA".
Never used that term mega, no matter how familiar it may be to you.

[PowerToThePeople]

16. Are any of the ultra-wealthy Socialists?

Any of them Wobblies?

Any of them Donate 100% of their wealth and start working paycheck to paycheck?

[reddread]

17. I couldnt tell you.

perhaps google could?

[PowerToThePeople]

18. A quick search

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/040413-650685-french-socialist-jerome-cahuzac-hides-swiss-account.htm

Ruling Class: Socialism is in theory a system of government that brings equality to society. But the reality is far different. As George Orwell once noted, some members of a socialist society are always more equal than the others.

The socialist government of France is enduring a juicy scandal this week. It seems recently resigned budget minister Jerome Cahuzac has admitted to a Swiss bank account holding about 600,000 euros. This shouldn't be a big deal. But it is, because:

• Cahuzac was "until two weeks ago responsible for cracking down on tax evasion," reports France 24 International News, and his Swiss account was part of his scheme "to avoid paying taxes in France."

• No one in a socialist society is supposed to be better off than his fellow man. Only dirty capitalists use foreign banks to enrich themselves.

• Under socialism, taxes are embraced, not avoided.

To the socialist, wealth is contemptible — except when socialist leaders are rich. For reasons we don't understand, it was fine for Venezuelan despot Hugo Chavez to die with a net worth of $1 billion, while the country's per-capita GDP languished at 96th in the world, according to the CIA World Factbook.

Most sites that came up appeared to be right winger sites that were trashing champagne liberals.

---------------

This is tough, because we live in a Capitalist system. So, even if you believe in Socialism, you must live by a capitalist ruleset at least in part to survive here. I guess the question is, "How much Capitalist can someone be before they are no longer considered a progressive."

[Spirochete]

19. Ted Turner, perhaps n/t

[reddread]

20. interesting call

I suppose I'll have to forgive him someday for turning CNN over to Army Psych Ops friendly owners.
unless its something he would do/did?