Party of the rich

Desh said:
Whats wrong with being rich?
Click to expand...

Absolutely nothing. In fact, it is what you are supposed to do... be successful and not a drag on everyone else. So then, why do Liberals refer to the Republican Party as the "party of the rich" in such a demeaning way?

As a philosophy, liberalism says: Anyone who has become anything has acquired it through theft, luck, deceit, or some other inauspicious method; but importantly, government must always act as a scale to right theses wrongs which manifest themselves as "success". All you have to do is remember Dick Gephardt (Dem) speaking about the winners of Life's lottery referring to the successful people that worked hard and made a good life for themselves from that hard work.
 
Last edited:
I dont like rich people who then act like they are the chosen ones. The only ones who matter. The rich who look down on the working class and think THOSE are the people who should pay the taxes and not me.

You seem to think all the rich people who then think they have a right to buy our government and give them their marching orders are all from the ground up bootstraps kinda people.

Do you have any idea how many are OLD money? Like McCain, Bush and many of your heros.

You whorship the Paris Hiltons of this world and give short shrift to the vast majorities of Americans. I have no problem with rich people. I do have problems with rich people who think they own this country because they are rich.

So what makes the people who won the lottery any worse than say Bush who won the genetics lottery by desiding to be born into a wealthy family?
 
How does one decide to be born into a wealthy family? I'm sure a lot of unborn kids would love to know. Kennedy and Kerry are rich. So are bush and mccain. Big deal. There are good and bad rich people just like there are poor people. Funny you mention the rich looking down on people. Often describes the liberal elite.
 
Desh said:
I dont like rich people who then act like they are the chosen ones. The only ones who matter. The rich who look down on the working class and think THOSE are the people who should pay the taxes and not me.

You seem to think all the rich people who then think they have a right to buy our government and give them their marching orders are all from the ground up bootstraps kinda people.

Do you have any idea how many are OLD money? Like McCain, Bush and many of your heros.

You whorship the Paris Hiltons of this world and give short shrift to the vast majorities of Americans. I have no problem with rich people. I do have problems with rich people who think they own this country because they are rich.

So what makes the people who won the lottery any worse than say Bush who won the genetics lottery by desiding to be born into a wealthy family?
Click to expand...

This is too good not to reply to. Allow me to cite a few quotes to you about people that believe they are the chosen ones and are better than everybody else.

"Goddamn L. D., did you see that family right out of Deliverance? Get me the hell out of here!"
-- Hillary Clinton speaking to L. D. Brown, her bodyguard, while at the Arkansas county fair in the early 1980's regarding a family in bib overalls and cotton dresses

"Bimbos, Sluts, Trailer Trash, Rednecks Sh*t Kickers."
-- Hillary Clinton referring to Bill Clinton's girl friends and other residents of Arkansas

"Goddamn it, Bill, you promised me that office."
-- Hillary Clinton during the infamous Inauguration Day fight between Bill, Hillary, and Al Gore about who would get the Vice President Office in the West Wing

"I'm sorry, I don't talk to the press and that applies to you, unfortunately. Even though I think you're cute."
-- Chelsea Clinton talking to Sydney Rieckhoff, a Cedar Rapids, IA fourth grader "kid reporter" for Scholastic News in Vinton, IA 30 December 2007

"Fuck off! It's enough that I have to see you shit-kickers every day, I'm not going to talk to you too!! Just do your Goddamn job and keep your mouth shut."
-- Hillary Clinton to a State Trooper

Referencing your statement about "The rich who look down on the working class and think THOSE are the people who should pay the taxes and not me," and "rich people who think they own this country because they are rich." and the Old money comment.

Have you ever heard of Teddy Kennedy (Dem-MA) and Jay Rockafella (Dem-WV)?

Do you want me to keep going?

I do not "whorship" the Paris Hiltons anywhere. I find them to be pretty much worthless with respects to ever doing anything useful.

"So what makes the people who won the lottery any worse than say Bush who won the genetics lottery by desiding to be born into a wealthy family?"

I mentioned the comment about Congressman Dick Gephardt (Dem) speaking about the winners of Life's lottery and you think that he was talking about the PowerBall Lottery? This is where you show your lack of historical knowledge. he was talking about people that had worked hard and made something of their life. They had saved and invested and now had a good nest egg for the future and to pass on to their families. But you think that it is winning a lottery. This proves what I have always believed.

As a philosophy, liberalism states: Anyone who has become anything has acquired it through theft, luck, deceit, or some other inauspicious method; but importantly, government must always act as a scale to right these wrongs which manifest themselves as "success".
 
Last edited:
There are rich and poor in both parties, and everything in between. The pursuit of wealth is something just about all of us engage in, and is something to be celebrated. No Dems that I know are "anti-rich."

When people say that the GOP is the "party of the rich," they mean that the policies the GOP advances favor those with means, and often leave those without means out in the cold, and short of what we like to call "equal opportunity," one of the cornerstones upon which this country is built. Bush has proudly called the wealthy elite "his base," and his policies have certainly seen a rapid advancement in the gap between rich & poor. The haves have prospered, while the have nots have lost ground.

That's what people mean.
 
Onceler said:
There are rich and poor in both parties, and everything in between. The pursuit of wealth is something just about all of us engage in, and is something to be celebrated. No Dems that I know are "anti-rich."

When people say that the GOP is the "party of the rich," they mean that the policies the GOP advances favor those with means, and often leave those without means out in the cold, and short of what we like to call "equal opportunity," one of the cornerstones upon which this country is built. Bush has proudly called the wealthy elite "his base," and his policies have certainly seen a rapid advancement in the gap between rich & poor. The haves have prospered, while the have nots have lost ground.

That's what people mean.
Click to expand...

The problem is that is not true. There are more millionaires now then in anytime in history. Many that have lost ground had done so because of poor decision making skills. They purchase homes they cannot afford, cars they cannot afford. They trade good judgment and sound financial practices with wanting to live like a rich person now. Buying on credit when they should not. Spending all of their excess money on credit card payments with outrageous interest charges.

Lower taxes are a good thing - a Conservative ideal. Punishing tax rates on rich people only takes investment capital out of the economy where it could do the most good - a Liberal ideal.

Most everyone that works for a living has a 401 retirement plan. This is investment in the stock market where all of the rich people keep their money invested. Anything that harms the stock market harms anyone that has a 401 account. Things that affect the "rich" affect pretty much everyone else today.

There is nothing wrong with being rich, so why should they be punished for it. Every dollar that is taken by the government is one less dollar that will help the economy grow. Regardless of which Political Party is in power, the government never spends money efficiently. If you remember the Carter administration, the highest marginal income tax rate in 1980 was 70%. Today it is 35%. In the year Ronald Reagan took office (1981) the top 1% of income earners paid 17.58% of all federal income taxes. Twenty-five years later, in 2005, the top 1% paid 39.38% of all income taxes.

Think about that. If you had to pay 70% of your salary in taxes, you would have to work until August 12 to pay your taxes. Over 2/3 of your work is to pay the government for the right to work. How is that not anti-rich? It is anti-productive. But that is what the Democrats are known for.

If you remember, in 1980, there was a Misery Index to measure how miserable everyone was due to the economy. There was massive unemployment. The world hated America. The tax rates were oppressive. Leaving money in the hands of the people that earn it is what Democrats are against. They are always working on some tax increase that only takes money away from the economy and spends it very unwisely. This what Conservatives believe and history has proved this to be accurate.

Hillary was speaking about placing a $10 billion tax on the Oil Companies. Who is that going to help? Who is that going to harm? You can believe that oil prices are going to go up. The government already makes more money on fuel than the oil companies do. And who pays that tax. Not the oil companies, the consumer does at the pump.

You might be right about the Republican Party favoring business. Most people are employed by small businesses in this country and they are the ones that are hardest hit by taxes. These taxes are usually a product of Democrat policies.

If what you say is true and I believe it is, "The pursuit of wealth is something just about all of us engage in, and is something to be celebrated," then why do Democrats always get in the way of business?

While the Dems you know are not anti-rich, why do they always say that the rich are not paying their "fair share" of taxes, when in reality they are paying much more of their "fair share".

So if you are going to say that Republicans are the party for the rich, then it is only fair to say that the Democrats are the party against the rich. And when you say that, you have to keep in mind who you consider to be rich. In 1993, when Bill Clinton (Dem) took office, anyone making approximately $47K/yr was considered rich because that is who was lucky enough to receive a tax increase.
 
I like to see lots of the rich. They make good eatin' and when food runs out they should be the first ones to provide the necesary protein for the rest.
 
So long as they tax the hell outta them it is fine with me, because it is after all American society, our infrastructure, our knowledge and our freedoms that allow them to have too much.

"LAMB: What's the difference between a liberal and a conservative, in your opinion?

GALBRAITH: Well, I would say that most conservatives bend inward to think of their own interest and accommodate the state to their own interest and are, on the whole, more governed by ideology than I would think wise. As I say, I want to adjust to the practical situation. When I hear some of my conservative friends speak of the evils of government, I think they're being controlled by a formula rather than by specific thought. ' From Booknotes
 
midcan5 said:
So long as they tax the hell outta them it is fine with me, because it is after all American society, our infrastructure, our knowledge and our freedoms that allow them to have too much.
Click to expand...

That is a shame that you feel that way. All taxing people that make more than you does is to remove money that could go right back into the economy. What do the rich do with that money? They either invest it which creates jobs or they spend it which creates jobs. Either way, it helps everyone. But, if you think that taxes are too low, why not tax everything over $50,000/year. After all, why should anyone make more than that? That would make everyone equal, more or less.
 
midcan5 said:
So long as they tax the hell outta them it is fine with me, because it is after all American society, our infrastructure, our knowledge and our freedoms that allow them to have too much.
Click to expand...

What do you consider too much? 2 cars, 3 cars, what? How much house is too big. 2000 sq ft? 3000 sq ft? Someone that has less than you would say that you are rich and that you should be taxed/punished for having more.

Imagine what that would do for the economy?

It is too bad that you see that in America, it is our knowledge and freedoms that seem to be inherently bad.
 
PorterM said:
The problem is that is not true. There are more millionaires now then in anytime in history. Many that have lost ground had done so because of poor decision making skills. They purchase homes they cannot afford, cars they cannot afford. They trade good judgment and sound financial practices with wanting to live like a rich person now. Buying on credit when they should not. Spending all of their excess money on credit card payments with outrageous interest charges.

Lower taxes are a good thing - a Conservative ideal. Punishing tax rates on rich people only takes investment capital out of the economy where it could do the most good - a Liberal ideal.

Most everyone that works for a living has a 401 retirement plan. This is investment in the stock market where all of the rich people keep their money invested. Anything that harms the stock market harms anyone that has a 401 account. Things that affect the "rich" affect pretty much everyone else today.

There is nothing wrong with being rich, so why should they be punished for it. Every dollar that is taken by the government is one less dollar that will help the economy grow. Regardless of which Political Party is in power, the government never spends money efficiently. If you remember the Carter administration, the highest marginal income tax rate in 1980 was 70%. Today it is 35%. In the year Ronald Reagan took office (1981) the top 1% of income earners paid 17.58% of all federal income taxes. Twenty-five years later, in 2005, the top 1% paid 39.38% of all income taxes.

Think about that. If you had to pay 70% of your salary in taxes, you would have to work until August 12 to pay your taxes. Over 2/3 of your work is to pay the government for the right to work. How is that not anti-rich? It is anti-productive. But that is what the Democrats are known for.

If you remember, in 1980, there was a Misery Index to measure how miserable everyone was due to the economy. There was massive unemployment. The world hated America. The tax rates were oppressive. Leaving money in the hands of the people that earn it is what Democrats are against. They are always working on some tax increase that only takes money away from the economy and spends it very unwisely. This what Conservatives believe and history has proved this to be accurate.

Hillary was speaking about placing a $10 billion tax on the Oil Companies. Who is that going to help? Who is that going to harm? You can believe that oil prices are going to go up. The government already makes more money on fuel than the oil companies do. And who pays that tax. Not the oil companies, the consumer does at the pump.

You might be right about the Republican Party favoring business. Most people are employed by small businesses in this country and they are the ones that are hardest hit by taxes. These taxes are usually a product of Democrat policies.

If what you say is true and I believe it is, "The pursuit of wealth is something just about all of us engage in, and is something to be celebrated," then why do Democrats always get in the way of business?

While the Dems you know are not anti-rich, why do they always say that the rich are not paying their "fair share" of taxes, when in reality they are paying much more of their "fair share".

So if you are going to say that Republicans are the party for the rich, then it is only fair to say that the Democrats are the party against the rich. And when you say that, you have to keep in mind who you consider to be rich. In 1993, when Bill Clinton (Dem) took office, anyone making approximately $47K/yr was considered rich because that is who was lucky enough to receive a tax increase.
Click to expand...

"More millionaires" is a terrible gauge of the economy. The growing gap between rich & poor is a major problem. Yes, some are getting rich, but exponentially more are falling behind. Wages have not kept pace, and the cost of living has increased beyond the average worker's ability to balance his or her budget. Yes, many are buying more than they should, but that is oversimplifying the problem: healthcare, college costs, energy, housing - these are the things that are breaking the back of the working middle class. And most have gone completely unaddressed in the Bush years; there is some sort of feeling that the market will just take care of things, but it's really not working out that way.

You can't simply ignore these problems. Most people are working harder; it's much more common now for families to have both parents working, with one working more than 1 job, simply to keep up....and they're still falling deep into debt because of the skyrocketing costs I listed above. Economically, this is a recipe for disaster, and we're already seeing it. Bush had no economic plan besides "cut taxes." He was of the belief that, once you do that, everything else will magically work itself out. Well, the growth that he hoped to see from that didn't transpire, and we're now on the precipice of what could be a deep recession because of policies that many see as irresponsible at best, and which Nixon's economic advisor called "immoral" because of the debt they will force our children to pay.

For the record, I believe in a 33% top tax rate; I don't think it's acceptable for the government to take more than a 3rd of someone's income.
 
I agree on the 33% but I also do not think that someone making 40K should pay a higher percentage of their income than a person making 10 million.
 
The corrupt 'Crats

Democratic Representative Alan Mollohan was investigated after it was discovered that his assets increased by at least 1,000 percent in four years:


Documents showed a simply splendid increase in Mollohan's assets and income between 2000 and 2004. It also became apparent that people who benefit from Mollohan's earmarking of federal funds contributed generously to his campaigns..

The question, said the New York Times in a story, is "whether any of that taxpayer money helped fuel a parallel growth in his personal fortune."

Mollohan reported a portfolio of less than $500,000 in 2000, generating less than $80,000 in income. In 2004, he reported having at least $6.3 million in assets that generated from $200,000 to $1.2 million in income.

The center asserted in its complaint that Mollohan's disclosure forms between 1996 and 2004 contained 260 omissions or undervaluations of his assets.

Mollohan tried to spin away questions about his appropriations and personal wealth by painting himself as victim of a partisan attack...

...As a member of the House Appropriations Committee, he steered $250 million to five nonprofit organizations he designed himself.

Records show that executives, employees, board members and contractors who benefited from the five nonprofits have contributed generously to Mollohan's campaign and political action committees. The New York Times found that from 1997 through 2006, they gave at least $397,122. The National Legal and Policy Center filed a complaint with federal prosecutors against him in 2006. The NLPC charged Mollohan with understating the value of his real estate investments on his annual financial disclosure reports. It also questioned campaign contributions from officials of the nonprofit groups.



This doesn't play well for that "Culture of Corruption" theme the Dems are working, considering that Representative Conyers was also up for ethics violations.

Previous News on Democratic Voter Fraud, Corruption and Convictions:

Alabama- Alabama's former Democratic Governor was convicted on federal charges of racketeering, fraud, bribery, extortion and obstruction of justice.

St. Louis - (Missouri and Illinois) 16 convictions of voter fraud, election violations, and attempted murder of a federal voter fraud witness
East St. Louis makes Voter Fraud a Business
$5 for Non-Racists; Racists are $10
ESL Prosecution Witness Falters
Damning Tapes in East St. Louis Voter Fraud Trial
Witness Grilled at ESL Vote Fraud Trial
How to Buy Votes at ESL Vote Fraud Trial
"Showing Appreciation" at ESL Voter Fraud Trial
Democratic Vote Buyers May Get Pass
ESL Vote Fraud Trial Gets Nasty
Ugly Politics, Ugly Trial in ESL
Closing Arguments Wrap Up in ESL Voter Fraud Trial
"Guilty" Verdict in ESL Voter Fraud Trial
Convicting Democrats is New St. Louis Pastime
Another One Bites the Dust from the "Culture of Corruption" Party
Area Democrat Pleads Guilty of Plotting to Murder Federal Voter Fraud Case Witness!
More Democrats to be Indicted in East St. Louis

Georgia- Former Mayor Convicted of Tax Evasion
Former mayor Bill Campbell was acquitted Friday of lining his pockets with payoffs

Louisiana- Former Aide Convicted, Representative Under Investigation
Former Aide Pleads Guilty, Will Testify Against Rep. Jefferson
Six aides were served subpoenas to testify in the bribery case against Re. Jefferson

New Mexico- Democratic Governor Lied on His Resume
Governor Richardson admits after nearly four decades that he was not drafted by a major league baseball team as he had claimed.

New Jersey & Ohio- Accusations of Voter Fraud
Dead People Voting in New Jersey
Quick, Somebody Call Ohio!

North Carolina- Fraud
U.S. Representative sentenced to four years for fraud

Texas- Democrats Guilty in Campaign Financing
Texas Contractors pled guilty to illegal campaign donations to Democrats.

Washington DC- Marion Barry Again Convicted
Marion Barry was sentenced to three years of probation tax evation

Washington State- Evidence of Organized Voter Fraud
Election officials knowingly and unlawfully counted ballots from ineligible voters

West Virginia - At least 6 Convictions of Voter Fraud this Year
West Virginia Democrats Charged with Vote Buying
Senator Byrd Loses Support
Another One Bites the Dust from the "Culture of Corruption" Party
More Democratic Voter Fraud Charges

Wisconsin- State Senate Majority Leader pleads guilty to two felonies
Senate Majority Leader Democrat pled guilty to two campaign finance felonies.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid collected a $1.1 million windfall on a Las Vegas land sale even though he hadn’t personally owned the property for three years, property deeds show.

In the process, Reid did not disclose to Congress an earlier sale in which he transferred his land to a company created by a friend and took a financial stake in that company, according to records and interviews.

The Nevada Democrat’s deal was engineered by Jay Brown, a longtime friend and former casino lawyer whose name surfaced in a major political bribery trial this summer and in other prior organized crime investigations. He’s never been charged with wrongdoing - except for a 1981 federal securities complaint that was settled out of court.

Land deeds obtained by The Associated Press during a review of Reid’s business dealings show:

-The deal began in 1998 when Reid bought undeveloped residential property on Las Vegas’ booming outskirts for about $400,000. Reid bought one lot outright, and a second parcel jointly with Brown. One of the sellers was a developer who was benefiting from a government land swap that Reid supported. The seller never talked to Reid.

-In 2001, Reid sold the land for the same price to a limited liability corporation created by Brown. The senator didn’t disclose the sale on his annual public ethics report or tell Congress he had any stake in Brown’s company. He continued to report to Congress that he personally owned the land.

-After getting local officials to rezone the property for a shopping center, Brown’s company sold the land in 2004 to other developers and Reid took $1.1 million of the proceeds, nearly tripling the senator’s investment. Reid reported it to Congress as a personal land sale.

The complex dealings allowed Reid to transfer ownership, legal liability and some tax consequences to Brown’s company without public knowledge, but still collect a seven-figure payoff nearly three years later.

Reid hung up the phone when questioned about the deal during an AP interview.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top