The stock market reached a record high of 22,000 on August 2 and president Trump ‘trumpeted’ its significance. Meanwhile liberals continue to attack Trump over every word that he utters and every action that he takes, even publicly ignoring the great news of the soaring market.
News Busters reported on August 2:
The stock markets rose dramatically since President Donald Trump was elected. Just since his inauguration, the Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed more than 10 percent and set 31 new closing record highs.
The 30th record was set on July 31, 2017, when the Dow closed at 21,891, prompting speculations about the prospect of Dow 22,000. But none of the three broadcast news programs said anything about the new record the night of July 31. Not one word — CBS only supplied an onscreen graphic of the number with no information about it being a record.
That was part of a pattern where all three broadcast network evening news shows ignored the record highs 80 percent (25 out of 31) of the days they happened.
If the stock market were soaring like this under Obama there would be no end to the slobbering media coverage.
In private, however, this is another story altogether. Tens of millions of wealthy and well-to-do liberals are utterly thrilled with the gushing stock market. And if you want to know who is benefiting most from the Trump Surge on Wall Street you have to look at who the wealthy people are in America, and who makes up the “investor classes”.
It is certainly not most Trump voters. Look at a map of America with all of those rural “red” Trump Counties where the ‘regular folks’ live who may not have much money, who live simply, who work hard, who are honest, who love their country, who may have little or no savings, who may own no stocks or bonds, who would help out a stranger anytime, who only seek government assistance as a last resort, and who send their kids off to serve in the military. All they want is a chance to help themselves. Trump offered it to them.
On the other hand, most rich people voted for Hillary. But for decades we have been told that ‘rich Republicans’ represent all of the wealth in America. This is utterly false today, and the opposite of the truth. Here are the facts:
*The richest men in America including Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Mark Zuckerberg, George Soros, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Michael Bloomberg and Larry Ellison and hundreds of others billionaires and mega-billionaires avidly support Obama and Hillary and the Democrats.
*One of the richest companies in history, Google, is also one of the most liberal companies where 98% of employees are Democrats.
*Ultra-wealthy Silicon Valley is stridently anti-Trump and pro-Democrat.
*Most of the rich people in cities across America from New York to Chicago to Seattle to San Francisco to Los Angeles to Denver to Miami are Democrats.
*Wealthy suburbs, once bastions of Republicanism, are now often partly or very liberal.
*Most of the rich entertainers, producers and directors in Hollywood and New York are liberals.
*The two biggest figures on Wall Street, Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon, are both big-time Democrats.
*The richest per-capita counties in America all surround Washington, DC and are inhabited by Deep State federal workers who vote overwhelmingly Democrat.
*People who inherit a lot of money from their wealthy parents are often very liberal under pressure from media and political sources.
*Most of the 15 richest congressional districts in the US are represented by far-left Democrats including Nancy Pelosi (suburban San Francisco), Mike Honda (Silicon Valley), Carolyn Maloney (the Upper East Side of Manhattan in New York City) and Jim Himes (Cos Cob, Connecticut).
*At ultra-swanky resorts like Aspen, Colorado; Jackson Hole, Wyoming; or Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts you will find mostly strident liberals and few Trump voters.
*Well-to-do upper-middle-class professionals, bankers, financiers and business owners in much of America are liberal Baby Boomers with college degrees and advanced degrees who support open borders, radical ‘green’ activism, and trannybagger rights. They despise Trump. You probably have seen them in your town. They are often activists.
*The wealthy computer industry is largely hard-left liberal. Wealthy media, news, internet, publishing, film, TV and communications companies are largely or totally liberal.
*Meanwhile millions of educated leftists have infiltrated our banks and corporations and even have risen to the top like ‘greenie’ Royal Dutch Shell Oil CEO Ben van Beurden. Clinton Treasury secretary Robert Rubin ran New York’s Citigroup bank until it almost collapsed. The list goes on and on.
The result? Members of all of these above groups are benefitting big time from the Trump stock market surge yet they all despise Trump.
Are there rich Republicans and well-to-do Republicans?
Of course. But not anywhere near the number there used to be, or the number of rich socialists.
*Another huge group that is getting rich off of the Trump stock market are millions of unionized public school teachers (overwhelmingly liberals), other unionized government employees (overwhelmingly liberals) and members of private-sector labor unions (mostly liberals) all of whose pension funds are heavily invested in stocks. This is not new. Freedomworks reported way back in 2000:
According to the Federal Reserve, state and local government employee pension funds alone have nearly $3 trillion in assets, 66 percent of which is invested in corporate equities (i.e.: stocks). Indeed, 30 of the nation’s 50 largest pension funds are public employee pension funds. According to Pensions and Investment Magazine Online, these 30 funds have $1.5 trillion in assets, 60 percent of which is invested in the stock market. Remarkably, 13 percent of their assets are invested in foreign stocks. So much for “buy American.”
That $3 trillion would be about $6 trillion in today’s money. The Tax Foundation reported in 2005:
Some of the largest pension funds in America today are public employee and union pension funds. Most of these funds are managed on a contract basis by private investment houses such as Alliance Capital, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Solomon Smith Barney. Very few are managed in-house.
According to the Federal Reserve Board, public employee pension plans alone had nearly $2 trillion in assets as of September 2004. Overall, 54.8 percent of these assets were invested in corporate equities, 36.1 percent were invested in fixed income instruments (such as corporate and foreign bonds), with the remaining funds in cash or other investments.
Like most Americans, each fund has its own philosophy on how its assets should be balanced between corporate equities, fixed investments, and cash. The table below displays the asset balances for the 40 largest public employee and union pensions in the country, with combined assets of $1.7 trillion at the end of 2004 according to Pensions and Investments magazine.
On average, public employee pension funds have 60 percent of their assets invested in the stock market, including roughly 15 percent in foreign stock markets. Union pension funds have a slightly smaller share of their assets in the stock market, 57 percent.
Meanwhile Democrat legislators in more than a dozen states have made laws exempting government workers in those states from having to pay into Social Security.
These Democrats are giving their “friends” (i.e., government employees who are mostly Democrat voters and campaign contributors) a huge gift – the opportunity to not get ripped off in the worst “retirement” system ever, which is Social Security.
Everyone knows that SS is a failure with dreadful returns. That is why government employees, who vocally and politically support SS, have as much of their money as possible in private pension accounts that can be worth 3 to 9 times as much as Social Security would return to them in retirement.
Remember the Golden Rule: Leftists LOVE money more than anyone else. That is what makes them leftists – because they are materialistic people, with no spiritual side, like in our cities where they LOVE money and ignore or outright detest our Christian faith. This has been true throughout history. Urban people always have been materialists.
Only a wealthy Democrat like Hillary Clinton (the estimated wealth of Bill and Hillary Clinton is more than $150 million and maybe much more) would say, as she did, that she and her husband are “unlike a lot of people who are truly well off.” Wow. What arrogance.
And so here is a Nikitas3.com suggestion for all of the rich leftists who are benefitting beyond their wildest dreams under president Trump and the roaring market:
Give to charity all of the money that you have accumulated in the stock market since Trump was elected. Just do it! It is ill-gotten wealth as far as your rhetoric and your beliefs are concerned.
But they never will. Because it is a statistical fact that liberals are extremely stingy with their own time and money while conservatives are vastly more generous with both.
But, boy, when liberals are giving away Other People’s Money, well, then they are very generous!
Here are a few excerpts from an article on the conservative website The American Spectator about the charitable giving of liberals versus conservatives. This is from an article by Peter Schweizer from way back in 2008. It still applies today:
Consider the case of (Democrat) Andrew Cuomo, current New York Attorney General and advocate for the homeless. He has, according to his website, “compassion toward the most vulnerable of us.” And this is how the New York Times described the courtship of Kerry Kennedy (of guess which family): “Ms. Kennedy-Cuomo, 43, said she fell in love with Mr. Cuomo, 45, when he took her on a tour of a homeless shelter on their first date and agreed to fast for the labor leader Cesar Chavez.”
But that advocacy should not be confused with actually giving to the less fortunate. Cuomo was a homeless advocate throughout the 1990s, but according to his own tax returns he made no charitable contributions between 1996 and 1999. In 2000 he donated a whopping $2,750. In 2004 and 2005, Cuomo had more than $1.5 million in adjusted gross income but gave a paltry $2,000 to charity.
Cuomo made no charitable contributions in 2003, when his income was a bit less than $300,000.
CUOMO IS NOT alone in this Scroogery of course. Barack Obama has a rather poor track record when it comes to charitable contributions. He consistently gave 1 percent of his income to charity. In his most charitable year, 2005, he earned $1.7 million (two and a half times what George W. Bush earned) but gave about the same dollar amount as the President.
The last two Democratic Party nominees for President have come up short on the charity scale. Al Gore has been famously stingy when it comes to actually giving his own money to charities. In 1998 he was embarrassed when his tax returns revealed that he gave just $353 to charity.
Gore’s office initially defended the action, claiming that the Gores had often given “food and clothing to the homeless.” But when no one showed up in cast-off clothes, Gore’s spokesman Chris Lehane offered a typical “friend of Goodness” response saying that you could only “truly judge a person’s commitment to helping others” you needed to see “what they have done with their lives.” In other words, politics was charity work.
Senator John Kerry likewise has a poor record. In 1995 he gave zero to charity, but did spend $500,000 to buy a half stake in a seventeenth century painting. In 1993, he gave $175 to the needy. Later, of course, Kerry married the rich widow Theresa Heinz, and today is active in charitable causes using the Heinz foundation as his vehicle.
Senator Ted Kennedy has clearly relished his role over the years as a liberal Robin Hood. He once told Al Hunt of the Wall Street Journal, “I come from an advantaged life, and I’ll be goddamned if I’m going to get re-elected to the U.S. Senate by taking food out of the mouths of needy children.” But this should not be confused with Senator Kennedy actually giving much money to needy children.
Kennedy’s tax returns are obviously a closely guarded secret. But when he chose to run for President in the 1970s, he released some of them. With a net worth of more than $8 million in the early 1970s and an income of $461,444 from a series of family trusts, Senator Robin Hood gave barely 1 percent of his income to charity. The sum is about as much as Kennedy claimed as a write-off on his fifty-foot sailing sloop Curragh.
Now here are a few excerpts from a review from Reason.com of a famous book from 2006 by Arthur C. Brooks called Who Really Cares?: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism:
Brooks shows that those who say they strongly oppose redistribution by government to remedy income inequality (conservatives) give over 10 times more to charity than those who strongly support government intervention (liberals), with a difference of $1,627 annually versus $140 to all causes. The average donation to educational causes among redistributionists was eight dollars per year, compared with $140 from their ideological opposites, and $96 annually to health care causes from free marketeers versus $11 from egalitarians.
A 2002 poll found that those who thought government “was spending too much money on welfare” were significantly more likely than those who wanted increased spending on welfare to give directions to someone on the street, return extra change to a cashier, or give food and/or money to a homeless person.
Brooks finds that households with a conservative at the helm gave an average of 30 percent more money to charity in 2000 than liberal households (a difference of $1,600 to $1,227). The difference isn’t explained by income differential—in fact, liberal households make about 6 percent more per year. Poor, rich, and middle class conservatives all gave more than their liberal counterparts. And while religion is a major factor, the figures don’t just show tithing to churches. Religious donors give significantly more to non-religious causes than do their secular counterparts.
But far more striking than conservatives outbidding their liberal pals for charity points is what Brooks finds about class distinctions. Brooks finds that in families with incomes of less than $14,000 annually, working poor families gives more than three times as much as families on welfare. They also are twice as likely to give, and twice as likely to volunteer. “It is not poverty per se that makes people uncharitable—but rather the government’s policy for eradicating it,” says Brooks.
(Please bookmark this website. And please recommend this site to all of your friends via Facebook and any other means. Let’s make Nikitas3.com the #1 conservative site by word of mouth. And if you would like to contribute to Nikitas3.com, please click the link at the upper right where it says “support this site”. Thank you, Nikitas)