Mary wrote: >I'm less interested in the Forbes 400 than the Fortune 500; in the Democrat "super-billionaires" in the L.A.-based entertainment industry than the far greater number of Republican "country club millionaires" scattered throughout the nation. And if we >looked at the compensation packages, benefits, "golden handcuff" packages, etc.,of CEOs and other top executives, I don't doubt that quite a few Republican super-billionaires, or at least, >extremely rich millionaires, would tumble out.
No doubt. I'll check out the Fortune 500 stats when I get a chance. I do think demographics may be changing, however. I happened to come across this article in the Christian Science Monitor which discusses how the Rep./Dem. axis has switched in California. The majority of liberal/Democrat voters are now concentrated along the coastal region (where you have to be ultra rich to own property and make an upper range income to live) while the inland areas have a majority of middle and working class Republican voters. http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1031/p01s02-uspo.html > And there are certainly reasons other than financial > ones for allignment with the Republican Party, as religious conservatives, > some libertarians, and others will attest to. There are a myriad of reasons beyond financial and religious for many. > But overall, the Republicans have been, and are still, the party of business and of wealth. One need look no farther than its platform and favorite issues to see this, again and again and again. I look at it as a bit more complex than that, but don't have a problem with it being a champion of business. Kakki
