Why do most Hollywood celebrities support Obama?

[sammyunltd]

I mean, he's suppose to tax the hell out of the wealthiest in the country. Wouldn't that be enough to vote for McCain?

 

[jpeyton]

Greed, or lack of it.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Well, they tend to travel in very liberal circles and California is a pretty liberal state as a whole so you do the math.

In this case they just happen to be right though.

 

[Blackjack200]

I've often wondered the exact same thing. My guess is that, compared to corporate executives, actors just don't work that hard. Paying 50% taxes on your earning is a lot more painful when you've had to scrape and claw your way to the top than it is when someone just hands you millions of dollars to act in a movie.

That's just a guess though, I have no way of knowing.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Well, they tend to travel in very liberal circles and California is a pretty liberal state as a whole so you do the math.

In this case they just happen to be right though.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
I've often wondered the exact same thing. My guess is that, compared to corporate executives, actors just don't work that hard. Paying 50% taxes on your earning is a lot more painful when you've had to scrape and claw your way to the top than it is when someone just hands you millions of dollars to act in a movie.

That's just a guess though, I have no way of knowing.

How many CEOs making million dollar salaries do you know who scraped and clawed for anything they have? 1%? Who pays for Ivy League educations by and large anyway? Rich parents or poor hard working students?

 

[lupi]

I believe it's a general lack of intelligence.


DENVER - How does Barack Obama lure wealthy donors to a big-money fundraiser in Hollywood? Bring in Barbra Streisand as the headline performer.

The Oscar-winning singer and actress was to perform Tuesday night on Obama's behalf in Beverly Hills. It was to be a two-step evening with a reception and dinner costing $28,500 a person followed by a later event featuring Streisand at $2,500 a ticket.

Obama was flying to Los Angeles after an appearance Tuesday morning in a Denver suburb.

The wealthy fundraiser comes on a day when the crisis in the U.S. economy remained an urgent issue for many Americans. Monday's sharp sell-off left the Dow Jones industrials and the Standard & Poor's 500 index down by more 4 percent, eroding the value of individual retirement and investment accounts, for example.

Streisand originally backed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton but switched to Obama when he emerged as the Democratic presidential nominee.

Streisand has been outspoken in criticizing John McCain's selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate on the Republican presidential ticket.

"This calculated, cynical ploy to pull away a small percentage of Hillary's women voters from Barack Obama will not work," Streisand wrote on her Web page. "We are not that stupid!"

"I believe John McCain chose Gov. Palin because he truly believes that women who supported Hillary ? an experienced, brilliant, lifelong public servant ? would vote for him because his vice president has two X chromosomes," Streisand said. "McCain's selection of Gov. Palin is a transparent and irresponsible decision all in the name of trying to win this election."




In other news, Streisand wrote on her Web page. "We are that stupid!"

 

[Vic]

I'd say they're pretty representative of urban dwellers in general, and especially on the west coast. I have not yet seen a single McCain yard sign here in Portland, but there's an Obama yard sign in front of every other house, even in the wealthiest neighborhoods. The issue is not even remotely as simple as who might raise whose taxes. The primary divide between Republicans and Democrats is rural and urban.

Down in the LA area, long-time Republican stronghold Orange county might go to McCain this year, but LA county will certainly go to Obama in a landslide. Kerry got ~64% there in 2004. I'd expect Obama to do better, and I also wouldn't be surprised if celebrity preferences lined up to a similar ratio.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
I've often wondered the exact same thing. My guess is that, compared to corporate executives, actors just don't work that hard. Paying 50% taxes on your earning is a lot more painful when you've had to scrape and claw your way to the top than it is when someone just hands you millions of dollars to act in a movie.

That's just a guess though, I have no way of knowing.

This is total nonsense.

First, the rich, like highly-paid CEO's, don't pay 50% taxes on their income. In fact, the upper middle class pay more on a percentage than they do, because they're at about the same tax bracket but the ultra-rich have more tax deductions, breaks, write-offs, etc.

Second, name me a single modern CEO who clawed and scraped their way from the bottom to the top.

Third, acting is a ruthless business. 99% of actors are unemployed and/or making nearly nothing. If pure unfettered all-or-nothing capitalism were applied to the rest of this country's industries as it is in show business, the people would have rebelled to communism decades ago.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: lupi
"This calculated, cynical ploy to pull away a small percentage of Hillary's women voters from Barack Obama will not work," Streisand wrote on her Web page. "We are not that stupid!"

:laugh: BS thinks Palin was brought on board to pick up the Hillary voters? OMG! Bwaaahahahahahahahahahaha... How stupid can you get?

She was brought on board to energize a conservative base that was walking away. McCain is the one who is supposed to go after the Hill-voters. Always has been.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: lupi
"This calculated, cynical ploy to pull away a small percentage of Hillary's women voters from Barack Obama will not work," Streisand wrote on her Web page. "We are not that stupid!"

:laugh: BS thinks Palin was brought on board to pick up the Hillary voters? OMG! Bwaaahahahahahahahahahaha... How stupid can you get?

She was brought on board to energize a conservative base that was walking away. McCain is the one who is supposed to go after the Hill-voters. Always has been.

So what was Palin's speech about the day the VP was announced? Finishing what Hillary started with the 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling?

Honestly, I don't care one bit what Streisand blogs about (or any other celebrity's political opinions for that matter), but I think there's no question that McCain hoped to get some Hillary voters along with shoring up the moral authoritarians.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: lupi
"This calculated, cynical ploy to pull away a small percentage of Hillary's women voters from Barack Obama will not work," Streisand wrote on her Web page. "We are not that stupid!"

:laugh: BS thinks Palin was brought on board to pick up the Hillary voters? OMG! Bwaaahahahahahahahahahaha... How stupid can you get?

She was brought on board to energize a conservative base that was walking away. McCain is the one who is supposed to go after the Hill-voters. Always has been.

So what was Palin's speech about the day the VP was announced? Finishing what Hillary started with the 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling?

Honestly, I don't care one bit what Streisand blogs about (or any other celebrity's political opinions for that matter), but I think there's no question that McCain hoped to get some Hillary voters along with shoring up the moral authoritarians.

Just as the Biden pick was made for political gains amd just as who knows how many vp picks have been made for such reasons. To go into such an ATP&N worthy outrage about it, that just makes you look stupid.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: lupi
"This calculated, cynical ploy to pull away a small percentage of Hillary's women voters from Barack Obama will not work," Streisand wrote on her Web page. "We are not that stupid!"

:laugh: BS thinks Palin was brought on board to pick up the Hillary voters? OMG! Bwaaahahahahahahahahahaha... How stupid can you get?

She was brought on board to energize a conservative base that was walking away. McCain is the one who is supposed to go after the Hill-voters. Always has been.

So what was Palin's speech about the day the VP was announced? Finishing what Hillary started with the 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling?

Honestly, I don't care one bit what Streisand blogs about (or any other celebrity's political opinions for that matter), but I think there's no question that McCain hoped to get some Hillary voters along with shoring up the moral authoritarians.

Just as the Biden pick was made for political gains amd just as who knows how many vp picks have been made for such reasons. To go into such an ATP&N worthy outrage about it, that just makes you look stupid.

What outrage?

Oh, nm, Lupi's trolling again...

 

[Napalm]

Originally posted by: sammyunltd
I mean, he's suppose to tax the hell out of the wealthiest in the country. Wouldn't that be enough to vote for McCain?

Do you have some poll that the rest of us are missing?

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Vic


What outrage?

Oh, nm, Lupi's trolling again...

"I believe John McCain chose Gov. Palin because he truly believes that women who supported Hillary ? an experienced, brilliant, lifelong public servant ? would vote for him because his vice president has two X chromosomes," Streisand said. "McCain's selection of Gov. Palin is a transparent and irresponsible decision all in the name of trying to win this election."



Nice try their troll man.

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
I've often wondered the exact same thing. My guess is that, compared to corporate executives, actors just don't work that hard. Paying 50% taxes on your earning is a lot more painful when you've had to scrape and claw your way to the top than it is when someone just hands you millions of dollars to act in a movie.

That's just a guess though, I have no way of knowing.

This is total nonsense.

First, the rich, like highly-paid CEO's, don't pay 50% taxes on their income.

They pay the top bracket, which I think is 40%. Obama would probably raise it to 50%.

In fact, the upper middle class pay more on a percentage than they do, because they're at about the same tax bracket but the ultra-rich have more tax deductions, breaks, write-offs, etc.

This is total nonsense. I agree that there are too many loopholes for the rich, but it is not to the point that they actually pay less taxes than middle or upper middle class earners. This may be true for a few exceptional cases, but not across the board.

Second, name me a single modern CEO who clawed and scraped their way from the bottom to the top.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_O%27Neal

While I don't know any CEOs, I do know several well paid executives. Some come from modest backgrounds, some do not. They are all exceptionally smart, driven, and hard working people. Most work 9 or 10 hours day during the week, and 5-6 hours during the weekend.

Third, acting is a ruthless business. 99% of actors are unemployed and/or making nearly nothing. If pure unfettered all-or-nothing capitalism were applied to the rest of this country's industries as it is in show business, the people would have rebelled to communism decades ago.

Here, I agree. But the 99% of actors who are unemployed or making nearly nothing wouldn't have their taxes raised by Obama. The 1% that "make it", on the other hand, make millions of dollars without having to do as much work. (No need to wait tables on the side, for example).

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: Vic


What outrage?

Oh, nm, Lupi's trolling again...

"I believe John McCain chose Gov. Palin because he truly believes that women who supported Hillary ? an experienced, brilliant, lifelong public servant ? would vote for him because his vice president has two X chromosomes," Streisand said. "McCain's selection of Gov. Palin is a transparent and irresponsible decision all in the name of trying to win this election."


Nice try their troll man.

Are you stupid? I was replying to Whoozyerdaddy's post.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
They pay the top bracket, which I think is 40%. Obama would probably raise it to 50%.

Great, I'm arguing with someone who doesn't know jack about this issue.

The top tax bracket is 35% on income earned above $357,700.

The 2008 tax brackets are as follows.

Tax Rate Single Married Filing Jointly
10% Not over $8,025 Not over $16,050
15% $8,025 - $32,550 $16,050 - $65,100
25% $32,550 - $78,850 $65,100 - $131,450
28% $78,850 - $164,550 $131,450 - $200,300
33% $164,550 - $357,700 $200,300 - $357,700
35% Over $357,700 Over $357,700

This is total nonsense. I agree that there are too many loopholes for the rich, but it is not to the point that they actually pay less taxes than middle or upper middle class earners. This may be true for a few exceptional cases, but not across the board.

I said upper middle class income earners. See the bracket above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_O%27Neal

Sure you don't want to pick a different example?

While I don't know any CEOs, I do know several well paid executives. Some come from modest backgrounds, some do not. They are all exceptionally smart, driven, and hard working people. Most work 9 or 10 hours day during the week, and 5-6 hours during the weekend.

I did not discount any of this. The error is this regard was yours, when you discounted the working habits of successful actors (aka 'celebrities') and implied that working habits alone dictate partisan preference. A total absurdity.
The dividing line between Republican and Democrat is not where you or Limbaugh put it. I come from a modest background and am reasonably successful through hard work, and there is no way in hell I would vote for a party that panders to the moral authoritarians and warmongers like the Republicans do.
Maybe you think that criminalizing abortions and homosexuality and fighting unnecessary wars doesn't cost any tax dollars, but a lot of us aren't that stupid.

Here, I agree. But the 99% of actors who are unemployed or making nearly nothing wouldn't have their taxes raised by Obama. The 1% that "make it", on the other hand, make millions of dollars without having to do as much work. (No need to wait tables on the side, for example).

Now you're just digging your own hole.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
I've often wondered the exact same thing. My guess is that, compared to corporate executives, actors just don't work that hard. Paying 50% taxes on your earning is a lot more painful when you've had to scrape and claw your way to the top than it is when someone just hands you millions of dollars to act in a movie.

That's just a guess though, I have no way of knowing.

This is total nonsense.

First, the rich, like highly-paid CEO's, don't pay 50% taxes on their income.

They pay the top bracket, which I think is 40%. Obama would probably raise it to 50%.

In fact, the upper middle class pay more on a percentage than they do, because they're at about the same tax bracket but the ultra-rich have more tax deductions, breaks, write-offs, etc.

This is total nonsense. I agree that there are too many loopholes for the rich, but it is not to the point that they actually pay less taxes than middle or upper middle class earners. This may be true for a few exceptional cases, but not across the board.

Second, name me a single modern CEO who clawed and scraped their way from the bottom to the top.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_O%27Neal

While I don't know any CEOs, I do know several well paid executives. Some come from modest backgrounds, some do not. They are all exceptionally smart, driven, and hard working people. Most work 9 or 10 hours day during the week, and 5-6 hours during the weekend.

Third, acting is a ruthless business. 99% of actors are unemployed and/or making nearly nothing. If pure unfettered all-or-nothing capitalism were applied to the rest of this country's industries as it is in show business, the people would have rebelled to communism decades ago.

Here, I agree. But the 99% of actors who are unemployed or making nearly nothing wouldn't have their taxes raised by Obama. The 1% that "make it", on the other hand, make millions of dollars without having to do as much work. (No need to wait tables on the side, for example).

You are so overwhelmingly wrong its not even funny. just stop posting. You are embarasing yourself and your country.

the only part you got right = when you said in your first post "I have no way of knowing. "

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
I've often wondered the exact same thing. My guess is that, compared to corporate executives, actors just don't work that hard. Paying 50% taxes on your earning is a lot more painful when you've had to scrape and claw your way to the top than it is when someone just hands you millions of dollars to act in a movie.

That's just a guess though, I have no way of knowing.

This is total nonsense.

First, the rich, like highly-paid CEO's, don't pay 50% taxes on their income.

They pay the top bracket, which I think is 40%. Obama would probably raise it to 50%.

top marginal tax rate is 35%

In fact, the upper middle class pay more on a percentage than they do, because they're at about the same tax bracket but the ultra-rich have more tax deductions, breaks, write-offs, etc.

This is total nonsense. I agree that there are too many loopholes for the rich, but it is not to the point that they actually pay less taxes than middle or upper middle class earners. This may be true for a few exceptional cases, but not across the board.

its been shown repeatedly that the extremely rich pay a lower percentage in tax rate that the middle class, effective tax rate peaks somewhere in the 6 figure income range.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
I've often wondered the exact same thing. My guess is that, compared to corporate executives, actors just don't work that hard. Paying 50% taxes on your earning is a lot more painful when you've had to scrape and claw your way to the top than it is when someone just hands you millions of dollars to act in a movie.

That's just a guess though, I have no way of knowing.

How many CEOs making million dollar salaries do you know who scraped and clawed for anything they have? 1%? Who pays for Ivy League educations by and large anyway? Rich parents or poor hard working students?

You think CEO's just rise to the top by not working hard? These guys worked themselves up from the bottom working probably 12 hour days for decades. Actors don't know a thing about hard work, thus don't value their money like the average person.

 

[Blackjack200]

I think you guys are taking my off-the-cuff theory, twice characterized in my OP as a "guess", way too seriously. It was not meant to suggest that Republican voters in general are harder workers then Democratic voters. Done with this thread. Thanks.

 

[ProfJohn]

Getting back on topic...

I believe it has more to do with social issues more than anything else.

Look at the life styles of hollywood types: drugs, parties, multiple sexual partners. It is very permissive and 100% opposite of what the right wing conservatives would view as acceptable behavior.

Then you have the fact that in liberalism saying you care about something is as good as actually doing something. Look at all the liberals who salute Jimmy Carter for putting on a sweater and giving a speech about saving energy. One of my left leaning 60s era professors talked so highly about how "he cared."

Then you have a bunch of people who make a ton of money doing nothing of real consequences. Therefore, they embrace a leftist ideology based on 'caring' and 'helping' the less fortunate. They go to their little fund raisers and charity events and think that they are such wonderful people because they 'care' about the poor etc etc.

In short: liberalism allows a bunch of rich people to feel good about being rich because it allows them to 'care' about major issues without ever having to do anything about them.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Getting back on topic...

I believe it has more to do with social issues more than anything else.

Look at the life styles of hollywood types: drugs, parties, multiple sexual partners. It is very permissive and 100% opposite of what the right wing conservatives would view as acceptable behavior.

Then you have the fact that in liberalism saying you care about something is as good as actually doing something. Look at all the liberals who salute Jimmy Carter for putting on a sweater and giving a speech about saving energy. One of my left leaning 60s era professors talked so highly about how "he cared."

Then you have a bunch of people who make a ton of money doing nothing of real consequences. Therefore, they embrace a leftist ideology based on 'caring' and 'helping' the less fortunate. They go to their little fund raisers and charity events and think that they are such wonderful people because they 'care' about the poor etc etc.

In short: liberalism allows a bunch of rich people to feel good about being rich because it allows them to 'care' about major issues without ever having to do anything about them.

lol

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Well, they tend to travel in very liberal circles and California is a pretty liberal state as a whole so you do the math.

In this case they just happen to be right though.

One should look to said homeland to see how well getting it "right" works out on a local level.


And the use of the term liberal in regards to California is a misnomer IMHO, it is one of the most socially repressive states in the union, in its own sad "enlightened" repressive way.

Oh, your all good and all as long as you are politicly correct.

What a sad state of affairs.