Democrats Are the New “Party of the Rich”

And you thought they were just one of the ‘common folk’:

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.

In a state-by-state, district-by-district comparison of wealth concentrations based on Internal Revenue Service income data, Michael Franc, vice president of government relations at the Heritage Foundation, found that the majority of the nation’s wealthiest congressional jurisdictions were represented by Democrats.

He also found that more than half of the wealthiest households were concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats hold both Senate seats.

“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.

Link: http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071123/NATION/111230087/1002

The salary of the average Senator and Congressperson is $165,200.

Many of the faux empathetic Democrats are either born into privilege, marry into it, or acquire it on the way up the political ladder. Al Gore worked in the tobacco business, an industry he later slammed as responsible for his sister’s cancer, even though they contributed millions of dollars to his campaign. Ted Kennedy’s wealth came with his lineage. John Kerry married an heiress to the Heinz Corporation. John Rockefeller is reported to have 80 million dollars.

The trouble is that working class Americans don’t benefit from the tax system largely imposed by rich, patronizing, Democratic politicians. The middle class ratio in this country is about 45-49%, but the top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes.
The rich will always have lawyers and accountants to find write-offs and loop holes to ease the pain of April 15th, and I don’t blame them. Those who worked their way up from nothing with perseverance and hard work, deserve tax breaks just like everyone else. As the saying goes: “I don’t envy the rich or pity the poor”.

The average working American, regardless of tax bracket, supported welfare recipients who are just as allergic to work as they are birth control, to the tune of $359.5 billion in 2006.

Anyone with a couple of firing neurons figured out the hypocrisy of the Democratic rhetoric decades ago.

Unfortunately, their constituents aren’t that smart.

10 thoughts on “Democrats Are the New “Party of the Rich””

  1. Hogie, you are a piece of work.

    Speaking of impervious: Why do the poor keep on voting for just another party of the rich?

    All you do is harp on your disagreement with the Heritage findings instead of presenting a logical or factual response to any of the points I’ve made. You can’t offer one single fact as to why you think the Democrat’s welfare state is worth defending, or a rebuttal to the Heritage article, other than they’re “liars”.
    Wow, impressive.

    All you do is spew the same nonsense that’s been debunked thoroughly. The Democrats and their major contributors are just as filthy rich as they accuse the Republicans of being. You don’t have to tell me anything about yourself. Every sentence you write screams “guilt-ridden socialist”.

    I don’t know what your economic background is, but I have a good idea.

    Who else would cling to such idiotic, hackneyed ideas of “Republicans being the party of the rich and the Democrats being the party of the poor downtroden oppressed masses”? Your biggest flaw is your inability to grasp the fact that the Democrats, especially when it comes to taxes and the poor, are disingenuous frauds.

    Pull your head out of your ass and read the information I provided about the finances of the Democrats and their supporters. You think Kennedy, Clinton, Pelosi, Kerry, or the rest of the Dem Party hacks live in middle class neighborhoods? They live in the Hamptons for christ sakes. Where do you think they got all their money? By working along side the people they supposedly care about so much? Give me a godamned break.
    Maybe you could tell those rich Democratic friends of yours that job creation by big business is a good thing for America, and mouthing off about corporate greed while accepting money from them at the same time, makes them look pretty fucking two-faced.

    The barrage of anti-communist, anti-socialist, anti-welfare recipients, anti-liberal, anti-Union, anti-Democratic, “I am working class’, is too much for you?

    I’ve seen your site and it’s chock full of pro communist/socialist/union/democratic, anti Republican crap. And your point is?

    You come across as an abject bellyacher who would rather whine about the human condition than offer constructive solutions, like lower taxes for everyone.

    I’ve gotten into arguments with “barroom politicians” my hometown, over which party has actually done something for them economically, or better yet, over the course of the last 2 or 3 decades. When they start to bleat the hackneyed crap about how the “Democrats are for the working person”, I mention the steel mill and the Ford Plant, and that pretty much ends the conversation. Cleveland, Lorain, and well, most of northeast Ohio is a democratic stronghold, and it’s suffered greatly for the blind loyalty. The anti-business democrats and the democratic union mafias killed the once thriving manufacturing industry in this area. “For the working folk”, my ass.

    Bottom line up front: The Left’s implementation of higher taxes DOES NOT BENEFIT THE POOR. You cannot scrape up any evidence where it has eliminated poverty in any way shape or form.

    One of the world’s leading economists Lawrence Kudlow, discussed just how detrimental the Democrats are:
    Link: http://commentaries.kudlow.com/2007/11/27/kc112707.htm

    Contrary to your incessant whining, it’s not the big, bad Republicans keeping the poor or the working class from advancement. Nine times out of ten it can be placed squarely on their shoulders.

    You’re not only tapdancing, your oblivious to the reality of what and who the Democrats are.

    Good luck with your vision of a socialist paradise.

  2. Last post. This is such a waste of time.

    You post about the Heritage study, cheering its “results.” I point out how flawed the study is, and I point to the evidence. Then I get a barrage of anti-communist, anti-socialist, anti-welfare recipients, anti-liberal, anti-Union, anti-Democratic, I-used-to-be-poor nonsense. You throw up all kinds of chaff to avoid dealing with the subject of your post, and at one point you contradict yourself (are the Dems the party of the rich, or do the poor vote predominantly Democratic? Maybe the Dems are the party of everybody, rich and poor!).

    Then you tell me I’m tap dancing.

    You might as well continue carrying on this conversation by yourself. You are obviously impervious to logic.

  3. Hogie, your tap-dancing makes Gregory Hines look like an amateur, which is indicative of someone who really does not know what he’s talking about, especially from a personal perspective. I have lived through the economic hardships of a working class person and seen first hand the effects of the Democrats’ “generosity”. That is not only relevant to the post, it’s a major point, sweetpea. Obviously, you have nothing in your background that compares so you rely on…what? Whatever you’re told by your local Democratic Party?

    You know, it’s funny how the rich Dems raise taxes to ”help the poor”, yet will do what every wealthy person does and have their accountants find huge write-offs to LOWER their taxes. The Democrats mantra of “Soak the rich” isn’t necessarily meant for rich Democrats.
    They laugh all the way to the bank, too. They’re just not as “public” about it.

    Take a gander at just some of your beloved Democratic politicians and business moguls:

    Only ONE of the individuals on the list of top 25 527 committee donors is a Republican. The rest are flaming liberal democrats with ties to lunatic fringe elements like “MoveOn.org”.

    http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527indivs.asp?cycle=2004

    The democraps are in the ‘burbs too:

    The political shift toward Democrats has been noted in wealthy suburbs from Seattle to Philadelphia. In 2006, an amazing 63 percent of voters making from $150,000 to $200,000 chose Democratic candidates. Even those making over $200,000 favored Democrats……

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/rich_suburbs_move_to_democrats.html

    Your reputation is shot…

    A Rich Irony
    By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, November 23, 2007 4:20 PM PT
    Politics: Democrats have always insisted their party is the friend of the poor and unfortunate. But a new analysis suggests their carefully cultivated image is false.
    Democrats now represent a majority of the country’s wealthiest congressional districts.
    What’s more, better than half of the richest U.S. households — defined in the analysis as single filers with yearly incomes above $100,000 and married filers who top $200,000 a year — are concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats, not those hate-the-poor Republicans, have both Senate seats.
    The wealth in the Democratic strongholds is particularly conspicuous at the leadership level.
    “Nancy Pelosi, Democratic leader of the House of Representatives, represents one of America’s wealthiest regions,” wrote Heritage vice president of government relations Michael Franc in the Nov. 5 Financial Times. “Her San Francisco district has more than 43,700 high-end households. Fewer than 7,000 households in the western Ohio district of House Republican leader John Boehner enjoy this level of affluence.”
    The trend remains in effect at lower levels of leadership. Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer represents a district between Washington and Annapolis, Md., where almost 19,000 of the households are wealthy and median income exceeds $62,000.
    Meanwhile, Minority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri represents a district where a mere 5,200 households are rich and the median income is just $33,000.
    The data don’t quite square with the us-and-them economic populist mantle that the Democrats have worn for decades.
    Just look at the alternative minimum tax. It will soon hit tens of millions of upper-middle-class Americans with huge tax hikes. Democrats are fighting among themselves over a proposed “fix” to the AMT by levying huge new taxes on the wealthy. Why the fight? Both the very rich and the upper-middle class, who mostly live in big blue states on either coast, are now Democratic constituents.
    At some point, Democrats will have to come to terms with two issues. First, the rhetoric about being the party of the poor needs to be dropped if the party is to retain any credibility. Second, the party’s position on taxation, and particularly its penchant for taxing the rich so wealth can be redistributed to the poor, must be altered.
    Failure to at least address the latter will result in election losses. Isn’t it odd, though, that poor Americans would be better off with fewer of their “defenders” in office.

    http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=280713090826052&kw=A,Rich,Irony

    And:

    ……According to public record, one of every three members of the Senate and one out of every four members of the House are millionaires. Despite popular stereotypes of Republicans as the party of the rich and Democrats as the party of the working class, the wealthiest member of the Senate (John Kerry of Massachusetts) and the wealthiest member of the House (Jane Harman of California) are both Democrats. Of the top six wealthiest senators, five are Democrats.
    The ownership society has certainly found its way into Congress. But the wealthy Democratic owner class shows little interest in spreading the wealth and opportunity around.
    House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California, worth $16.3 million, is an appropriate spokesperson for the plantation caucus. This past week she stood at a press conference with other Democratic leaders stating uncompromising opposition to personal retirement accounts. The Democrats’ message: No negotiation on Social Security until “privatization is off the table.”
    Certainly, Pelosi seems quite comfortable in her ability to manage her own millions. However, the thought of working Americans retaining a few thousand dollars each year of their own earnings to invest in a personal retirement account is so outrageous to her she won’t even discuss it. The argument that a private account, ultra-conservatively managed, could at least double the retirement income produced by the current Social Security system doesn’t seem to interest Pelosi. Nor does the idea that this would be privately accumulated and owned wealth.

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43413

    Nine of the twelve richest people in the Senate are DEMOCRATS.

    You communists are all alike. You want forced equal distribution of wealth, regardless of whether or not
    you earned it.

    Just don’t touch your money.

    The jig was up a long time ago. At least to those who are smart enough.

    You’re a poser, hogie. And it shows.

  4. You baffle me.

    I haven’t asked anything about you. You don’t know anything about me. Yet your responses are full of your ‘personal experience’ and silly assumptions about me. And don’t worry about your insults. They have no effect, other than to make you look bad.

    Can we please stick to the subject of your post?

    Here’s where we now stand: you’ve proven my point. You state, “The poor consistently vote for the DemLeft.” Therefore, since the country is basically split 50/50 (as proven by the last two presidential elections) then the rich must be consistently voting for the GOP – the party of the rich.

    Will you be updating your post to admit your error?

    [There is one other possibility – that the poor and the very very rich vote Democratic, and the middle votes GOP. But that also contradicts your original post and the Heritage study, which based it’s conclusion on those counties earning above the median (i.e., only two categories – above and below).]

  5. Facts, idahogie, facts. I speak from experience. I’m basing my “study” on my own neighborhood life, and what has been going on in the country for decades. The Democrats sure haven’t been good for the Cleveland/Lorain economy. The once thriving steel plant and Ford plant, for instance, are virtual ghost towns….thanks to the Democrats and their Union supporters. Democrats improve the economy? You’ve got to be joking. Tax cuts not only help give incentives to businesses large and small, but also help the working class. That’s a fact.

    And that “jedreport” site…gawd, what a joke. It’s chock full of the typical socialist “all rich people are evil” shit. C’mon, idahogie. You have about as much life experience with the real working class as you do paying attention to the realities of economics.
    If you base your opinion on “income versus voting affiliation”, than you’ve just proven my point about the Democrats. The poor consistently vote for the DemLeft, and they sure haven’t helped themselves any. The vicious circle of Democrats’ tax and spend has resulted in a bloated welfare class collecting on the working class taxes, and it’s growing. The libs in Congress, Senate, and among effete websites like yours don’t do them any favors by enabling their poverty. That’s a real nice system you’ve helped set up. They don’t have to work. Ever. Why should they, when guilt-ridden libs made it possible for them to earn money for doing nothing? Working class people have enough sense to know the difference between a hand up and a handout. I vote Republican, and I’m not rich by any stretch of the imagination.
    Don’t like being insulted? Then, don’t insult my intelligence with your faux sympathies. I find that most liberals don’t deserve polite decorum.

    Remember I AM working class, sweetpea.

    Keep trying.

  6. Focus, sfcmc, focus.

    The issue is whether the Heritage study proves that the Dems are the ‘party of the rich.’ Can you address that, rather than throw insults and insane wingnut ideology?
    The Heritage Foundation study is based on median income. That is, half the people make more than the median income, half make less. It is a terrible statistic to use for the purpose that the Heritage Foundation is using it. What the median measure proves, if it is higher in areas that vote Democratic, is just that Democrats are good for the economy, and they raise everybody’s income. But we already knew that was true.

    The real way to answer the question of which party represents the rich is to look at income versus voting affiliation. And if you look at that (see the second link I provided in my first post), richer people vote GOP in higher proportion.

    So I contend that the Heritage Foundation is using unnatural logic and tortured statistics to prove something that they want to be true. They are much like Creationists and ID supporters in that regard.

    If you care to respond intelligently, please defend their methodology, or point out supporting evidence to show that higher income people vote Democratic.
    Don’t just hurl insults … that’s just childish.

  7. idahogie,

    You cannot possibly be this dense. The sad thing is, you’ve totally brainwashed yourself into believing the socialist line, and anything that directly refutes it is a “lie”. Is your niche in life simply to promulgate the hypocritical PR that the Democrats really give a shit about those they patronize? They pretend to because it gets good reviews, especially from those who ignore the lack of real accountability; especially their own. The rich Democrats in government keep getting richer, and the poor Democrats who keep voting for them don’t even get a cut.

    Look at the numbers of poor in this country. Tax money has been thrown into that cash cow since FDR started the welfare state, and what has it acomplished?

    It’s created a whole non-working class who pass welfare down to their children as if it were a fucking heirloom.

    The Heritage Foundation is not lying, contrary to your knee-jerk liberal opinion. The facts are substantiated by reality; the failure of the Left to address the real cause of most poverty: People who don’t bother even finish their high school education, an aversion to any kind of work, lack of motivation, unwed parents with illegitimate children, hard drugs, and last but not least, a propensity to rely on the government nanny for a monthly handout; the more kids, the heftier the check.

    Sweetpea, I AM middle class. I grew up in a blue-collar family in a working class neighborhood. I’ve seen both ends of the economic spectrum, and I’m very up close and personal with people who occupy every part of it. I know how they got where they are, whether they tried to better themselves, and if not, why they never did.

    To simply brush aside the reasons for poverty and blame it on the big bad Republican boogey man is just plain stupid. To act as if many poor people aren’t responsible for their own economic status, takes a pretty complicated set of cerebral blinders. But, leftwingnuts rarely surprise me anymore.

    Being jealous of the rich and overly guilt-ridden about the poor is a condition of socialist bohemians who don’t have a real job.

    Try your Ivory Tower shit on someone who doesn’t know any better, like one of your fellow Kool-Aid drinkers.

    SFC MAC

  8. sfcmac,

    Are you capable of addressing the point, or only pathetic attempts at misdirection?

    The Heritage Foundation twists logic and tortures statistics to prove a laughable conclusion. They are lying. Wingnuts eat it up because they will swallow anything that makes them feel good (and oh boy, do they need something, anything, after 7 years of conservative failures).

    This site uncritically swallows the bait, doing it’s job as a propaganda-spreader.

    Address the point. Defend the post.

  9. Hey idahogie,

    Love your site : “Drinking (the Kool-Aid) liberally”
    Missing the required neurons, aren’t we? Touting the dem party line doesn’t make the façade believable.

    Speaking of debunked:

    Hillary: “We’ll take money from you for the common good” Clinton:
    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39205

    Democrats shift gears on rhetoric:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119578411527201740.html?mod=politics_primary_hs

    Come up with a better excuse as to why the tax system has been used by the rich Democrats to make themselves feel better while pretending to feel empathy with the poor and working class.

    As a retired Army Sergeant First Class, I don’t like to pay taxes either. And anyone, if asked, will object to paying them. First of all, we have better ideas on how to spend our hard earned wages, and secondly, though you liberals bitch about your taxes going toward the effort in the GWOT, the rest of us don’t like the fact that we are footing the bill for welfare recipients who are as allergic to work as they are birth control.

    The joke is on you, sycophant. Being a neo-communist dem flunky is no way to go through life.
    Ted Kennedy (and the welfare leeches) loves you.

    SFC MAC

  10. This has been debunked. Christ it’s funny how you right-wingers fall for the simplest propaganda.

    See here: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/11/silly_new_wingn.php

    Or here: http://www.jedreport.com/2007/11/republicans-are.html

    By the way, today’s NYT has an article about how the GOP is recruiting rich people because of how poorly they are doing at fundraising: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/us/politics/26recruit.html.

    GOP – always has been the party of the rich, always will be. And you shill for them.

    Joke’s on you.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Social Media Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
Wordpress Social Share Plugin powered by Ultimatelysocial