Democrats Bash the rich but they are the Party of the Rich, Republicans Middle Class

TheDanold

TheDanold

Unimatrix
"Democrats like to define themselves as the party of poor and middle-income Americans, but a new study says they now represent the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional districts.
"If you take the wealthiest one-third of the 435 congressional districts, we found that the Democrats represent about 58 percent of those jurisdictions," Mr. Franc said.

A key measure of each district's wealth was the number of single-filer taxpayers earning more than $100,000 a year and married couples filing jointly who earn more than $200,000 annually, he said.

But in a broader measurement, the study also showed that of the 167 House districts where the median annual income was higher than the national median of $48,201, a slight majority, 84 districts, were represented by Democrats. Median means that half of all income earners make more than that level and half make less.

Mr. Franc's study also showed that contrary to the Democrats' tendency to define Republicans as the party of the rich, "the vast majority of unabashed conservative House members hail from profoundly middle-income districts."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071123/NATION/111230087/1002

Personally I think a lot of the rich are not into the Repubs position on the war, so I hope Dems don't delude themselves into thinking they are into having their taxes raised.
 
I saw this today as well. I live in the heart of one of the wealthiest most liberal cities in the U.S., San Francisco, so I can attest to this.

In California when you look at the voting breakdown the wealthier coast line areas tend to vote Democratic while the less affluent inland areas tend to vote Republican.

I hear friends of mine joke in S.F. that they hope to make enough money to one day vote Democrat.
 
Very interesting demographics. I'm not surprised to hear this though, because the red states are generally more poor than the blue states.
 
Zuzubar said:
Very interesting demographics. I'm not surprised to hear this though, because the red states are generally more poor than the blue states.
Click to expand...
It is interesting. Of course wealth is relative, I could be rich in San Fran but cost of living would make me end up worse in lifestyle.

I've read your posts, it's nice to see another voice of reason on here, care to tell us a bit about yourself?
Oh and welcome to the board.
:thup:
 
Dano, you could be called many things, but "Voice of Reason" is not among them.

Also, POLICY determines whether you stand for the poor, not how much money YOU happen to make. Once again, Dano, you seek to point to everything BUT what actually matters, in the attempt to make your fantasy world seem real.
 
TheDanold said:
It is interesting. Of course wealth is relative, I could be rich in San Fran but cost of living would make me end up worse in lifestyle.

I've read your posts, it's nice to see another voice of reason on here, care to tell us a bit about yourself?
Oh and welcome to the board.
:thup:
Click to expand...

I'm a 17-year old senior in HS, who will be voting in the 2008 Election. I find politics very interesting, but I also realize I have a lot to learn. I felt that this place would be a good start for me to express my views and to read what other people think as well.
 
If the right-winger was only middle class before he was elected, but voted for policies that mainly benefit the rich, and the wealthy left-winger voted for policies that mainly benefit the poor, which one is helping the poor>

I bet Dano STILL finds a way to rationalize that the right-winger was helping the poor in this scenario.
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
If the right-winger was only middle class before he was elected, but voted for policies that mainly benefit the rich, and the wealthy left-winger voted for policies that mainly benefit the poor, which one is helping the poor>

I bet Dano STILL finds a way to rationalize that the right-winger was helping the poor in this scenario.
Click to expand...


Well the Republicans do enjoy hiring illegal immigrants. that could be construed as helping the poor... ;)
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
If the right-winger was only middle class before he was elected, but voted for policies that mainly benefit the rich, and the wealthy left-winger voted for policies that mainly benefit the poor, which one is helping the poor>

I bet Dano STILL finds a way to rationalize that the right-winger was helping the poor in this scenario.
Click to expand...
You need to think about what "help" means, lefties may well argue that more welfare means "helping" the poor, but I think time has shown that it really acts as a crutch that keeps and gives incentive for people (especially poor people) not to work harder and get ahead.

Caesar, my first roommate's Mom was on social housing, she flat out said she would never work because then she would no longer qualify for the housing. Even though in the long run she could end up wealthier, the welfare program designed as help just made her want to stay where she was comfortable.
Was she "helped"?
 
[Caesar, my first roommate's Mom was on social housing, she flat out said she would never work because then she would no longer qualify for the housing. Even though in the long run she could end up wealthier, the welfare program designed as help just made her want to stay where she was comfortable.
Was she "helped"?]

Dano, your "rationale" is "if it doesn't work perfectly, scrap it". There are plenty of people who need said help on a temporary basis, and only use it as such. Those people are helped.

Also, you ALWAYS run right to the welfare argument, as if helping the poor ONLY amounts to welfare. How about minimum wage? How about government health insurance?
 
As I have told you before, Dano:

I was a ward of the state. Welfare, as you call it. When I turned 19, I join The Marine Corps, and have been self-sufficient ever since. According to your thinking, I should have found some way to collect welfare for the rest of my life, because That's what THEY do"
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
As I have told you before, Dano:

I was a ward of the state. Welfare, as you call it. When I turned 19, I join The Marine Corps, and have been self-sufficient ever since. According to your thinking, I should have found some way to collect welfare for the rest of my life, because That's what THEY do"
Click to expand...
Why did you wait until you were 19?
 
TheDanold said:
You need to think about what "help" means, lefties may well argue that more welfare means "helping" the poor, but I think time has shown that it really acts as a crutch that keeps and gives incentive for people (especially poor people) not to work harder and get ahead.

Caesar, my first roommate's Mom was on social housing, she flat out said she would never work because then she would no longer qualify for the housing. Even though in the long run she could end up wealthier, the welfare program designed as help just made her want to stay where she was comfortable.
Was she "helped"?
Click to expand...
Even before welfare reform the average wefare recipient was off welfare in 5 years. Under current welfare law there is a five year life time TANF cutoff. It imposes a one year limit on the certification period for food stamp benefits, unless all adult members of the household are elderly or disabled, in which case the certification period is limited to two years

Prohibits undocumented immigrants from receiving State and Federal benefits, except for emergency medical services, certain types of emergency disaster relief, public health immunizations, housing assistance, and certain Social Security Act benefits

Requires five years of residence in the United States for legal immigrants to be eligible for Federal means-tested services, unless the immigrant is a refugee, has been granted asylum, has had his or her deportation withheld or has or is serving in the United State Armed Services

Prohibits any additional cash assistance from going to a family that has a child after receiving aid for at least ten months, except under certain circumstances

Go here ----->http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V1054&can_id=26964 to catch up on welfare reform. This world of generational welfare recipients does NOT exist. There may be some EXCEPTIONS to the rule but my roomates first cousins aunt on his fathers grandmothers side is as ficticious as Reagans attempt to paint all welfare moms as cadillac drivers.
 
Socrtease said:
Even before welfare reform the average wefare recipient was off welfare in 5 years. Under current welfare law there is a five year life time TANF cutoff. It imposes a one year limit on the certification period for food stamp benefits, unless all adult members of the household are elderly or disabled, in which case the certification period is limited to two years

Prohibits undocumented immigrants from receiving State and Federal benefits, except for emergency medical services, certain types of emergency disaster relief, public health immunizations, housing assistance, and certain Social Security Act benefits

Requires five years of residence in the United States for legal immigrants to be eligible for Federal means-tested services, unless the immigrant is a refugee, has been granted asylum, has had his or her deportation withheld or has or is serving in the United State Armed Services

Prohibits any additional cash assistance from going to a family that has a child after receiving aid for at least ten months, except under certain circumstances

Go here ----->http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V1054&can_id=26964 to catch up on welfare reform. This world of generational welfare recipients does NOT exist. There may be some EXCEPTIONS to the rule but my roomates first cousins aunt on his fathers grandmothers side is as ficticious as Reagans attempt to paint all welfare moms as cadillac drivers.
Click to expand...

When I'm speaking of welfare, I don't just mean a check, I mean welfare programs too, like social welfare housing.
These promote dependence as well and unlike welfare reform via checks sent out being limited, they are continually expanding.
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
If the right-winger was only middle class before he was elected, but voted for policies that mainly benefit the rich, and the wealthy left-winger voted for policies that mainly benefit the poor, which one is helping the poor
Click to expand...

To really answer your question we'd obviously have to know what the policies we would be discussing are as there are obvious disagreements about what policies 'benefit' the rich and what policies 'benefit' the poor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top