Skip to comments.Democrats wake up to being the party of the rich
Posted on 11/05/2007 10:09:51 AM PST by rightinthemiddle
Alegislative proposal that was once on the fast track is suddenly dead. The Senate will not consider a plan to extract billions in extra taxes from megamillionaire hedge fund managers.
The decision by Senate majority leader Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat, surprised many Washington insiders, who saw the plan as appealing to the spirit of class warfare that infuses the Democratic party. Liberal disappointment in Mr Reid was palpable at media outlets such as USA Today, where an editorial chastised: "The Democrats, who control Congress and claim to represent the middle and lower classes, ought to be embarrassed."
Far from embarrassing, this episode may reflect a dawning Democratic awareness of whom they really represent. For the demographic reality is that, in America, the Democratic party is the new "party of the rich". More and more Democrats represent areas with a high concentration of wealthy households. Using Internal Revenue Service data, the Heritage Foundation identified two categories of taxpayers - single filers with incomes of more than $100,000 and married filers with incomes of more than $200,000 - and combined them to discern where the wealthiest Americans live and who represents them.
Democrats now control the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions. More than half of the wealthiest households are concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats control both Senate seats.
This new political demography holds true in the House of Representatives, where the leadership of each party hails from different worlds. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic leader of the House of Representatives, represents one of America's wealthiest regions. 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at ft.com ...
At least it should be.
I knew this was true because I could not understand why the Crats would state that the “tax cuts” were for the wealthiest 1% and didn’t help anyone else. If that was the case - why wouldn’t the 1% want to keep the Republicans in office to get the “tax cuts”?
Did I hear you say that there must be a catch;
will you walk away from a fool and his money?
If you want it;
here it is, come and get it;
make your mind up fast;
if you want it anytime;
I can give it but you better hurry cuz it may not last;
Badfinger ca. 1970
Class warfare you say? Yeah, but the republicans need to fight back. This, ‘my friend on the left’ bilge has to go. No one who is for freedom should have ‘friends on the left’, the party and people representing the new NAZI party.
It takes a limousine...to be a “Limousine Liberal”.
they don’t remember what it was like when we had a liberal president, congress AND Federal reserve. imagine if a president hillary replaced bernanke with Krugman.
In 1993, I read, in The Limbaugh Letter, that the U.S. Senate had 28 millionaires and that 21 of them were Democrats.
In June 1994, I met a black man who said that he was a Democrat because all poor Americans should be Democrats. I said, “Which specific bills have any Democrats proposed that helped the poor?” He said, “I don’t know.” I said, “Which bills have Republicans proposed that hurt the poor?” He said, “I don’t know.” I told him that many Republicans propose bills that decrease tax rates, which stimulate investment, helping poor people find jobs. He said that he listened to other Blacks who said that all poor Americans should be Democrats, but he didn’t question the lies until I asked him about it. In Nov. 1994, he said that he was a Republican.
The Democrats are the party of the super-rich like Soros, the college-educated elites in media, academia, the arts, etc., would-be urban sophisticates and bohemians, the chronically unmarried and/or militantly gay, government employees and dependents, and the underclass. Republicans are the party of the middle class, the small business person, the self-employed, the married, the military and the religious believers. By and large.
Actually, the Democrats are the party of the status quo, the Republicans the party of the aspiring class.
Those who cling to privilege, especially government granted privilege or “rents” (money payments without requiring work or other compensation) favor the Democrats. This includes those who have it made and want to keep the hoi polloi out of the lifeboat, as well as Social Securiy pensioners, Teachers’ unions, other government unions and people who are granted privileges by government fiat like lawyers.
People who want more and are willing and able to work for it (sales staff, small businessmen, non union workers) favor the Republicans.
Warren Buffet (imho) isn’t altruistic, he just wants to keep his position on top of the heap as the expense of the rest of the heap.
The rats are the party of all who seek to use the power of government to force economic costs and constraints on others. Here is my list of these groups promoting economic costs on others:
- Unions, both public and private
- Public employee groups not unionized
- Renewable energy industry mandate supporters
- Direct lending student loan industry
- Environmental groups
- Racial preference supporters
- Welfare rights industry
- Illegal alien supporters
- Trial lawyer industry and supporters
- Higher education industry
- Gay rights supporters
- Senior entitlement supporters especially AARP
Later on came the realization: the Republicans are the party that want to keep the rich rich, and the Democrats are the party that want to keep the poor poor.
That's keeping their base.
I’ve believed for years that there were more rich liberals than rich conservatives. With the exception of fox news, the other major networks have newcasts that are far to the left.
If conservatives had the resources the left has, we’d have controlling interests in GE or Viacom by now and replace the news divsions with comptent, Brit Hume type jouranlists. But, we don’t. The multi,multi billion dallr networks and corporations seem to be controlled by leftwingers.
Agree with you
Except the Republicans would like to make more of the poor rich by getting government the hell out of the way and encouraging personal and financial responsibility.
I guess you said that with wanting the Democrats wanting to keep the poor, poor.
“In fact, the national GOPs stand on social issues has been a major reason why these areas have moved to the Democrat column.”
Absolute BS. The collar communities have been trending Democrat because the Democrats, after having the urban areas where they prevbiously lived, are leaving for “greener pastures” where they can work their evil again. I live in Dupage County, IL. We are just west of Chicago. Dupage County has historically been conservative, in contrast to the leftist funk of Chicago and Cook County. Cook County especially has been so destroyed by corruption, graft, and leftist mismanagement that its citizens are abandoning Cook County and flocking to the collar counties in droves. The problem is, they bring with them the mindset that their leftism isn’t what destroyed Cook County, but that the “movement” was hijacked.” So, they bring with them the same baggage that they used to destroy where they came from, and when they end up destroying their new communities, they’ll pack up their duds and move somewhere else. Leftist Californians, for example, have been doing that for decades.
If Republicans were smart, tactically, they would have gotten rid of all those exemptions that protect "the rich" in high tax states like Massachusetts, or New York, or California. The deductibility of state and local taxes, for example. Or the tax exemption given on income derived from municipal bonds.
Instead, they defend these breaks that encourage government bloat, believing that any tax increase at all is a bad thing. While "the rich" in blue states continue to support Democrats.
Why do think they call it “The Stupid Party”?
In any case, the myth over the GOP being the party of the rich will persist probably for generations.
Democrats stand for voters wishing to live out of the pockets of their fellow citizens.
When we ALL become victims, who will we blame?
A couple of good billboards there...
To be fair, West Chester is a high income community, its just much smaller than overcrowded San Francisco.
The rich love socialism to be imposed on the peons, since it eliminates their competition.
The next thing you’ll see is that the Secular Socialists will flip flop on the “morality” of being wealthy.
Now they’ll say that it is proof of their inherent superiority.
In the Washington suburbs, Fairfax County Virginia and Montgomery County Maryland are two of the richest counties in America.
Years back they were solid Republican middle class bedroom communities. Now they are wealthy and overwhelmingly Democrat counties with the elite rich and the protected government bureaucrats. The middle class had to move out to the less expensive far suburbs.
Filling in the vacuum for the departing middle class are hordes of illegals who do all the dirty work for the rich and pile in 20 to a home. Both counties have set themselves up as sanctuary cities for the illegals. Somebody has to clean their toilets and cut their grass.
Your group is interesting. Notice that none of these groups create a job or something useful.
They are the party of the elite. In every communist regime there has been a privileged elite which gets a lot of money and privileges. The ordinary person works hard and sees nothing. The current dems are those elite. They want to give us a communist regime and set themselves up as the beneficiaries of all our money.
I moved away from Fairfax County two years ago. Boy did you ever nail it.
Bingo. Socialism protects the assets of the wealthy and keeps anyone else from becoming wealthy. Look at the U.K. That is Socialism in action. Very few ultra rich who control everything and lots of working class stiffs with free health care, a month of vacation and lots of welfare queens.
Yes, but the potential is there to go the the other way: WHEN Republican finally highlight (and counter the national media on A)That smaller government and free market solution benefit the poor and minorities, B) That traditional republican stands (Christian stands, both Catholic and Protestan), is in line with Minority Believers’s (and VOTER’S) Beliefs and C) Stand on priciples; then the GOP can pull “working-class” districts eventually away from the Democrats! THIS IS “THE NEW SOUTHERERN STRATEGY”-in effect (aka not refering The south specifically, but to re-alignment!!..).
These suburban counties, filled with former inner city dwellers, were reliably Republican through the 1980s. The tide shifted for a number of reasons, nothing related to whether the later breed of inner city outmigrants were more liberal than their predecessors. The biggest factor was the "greening" of the upper middle class. The effects of liberal ideology in the public schools and the universities bore fruit in the conversion of many people from conservative backgrounds (e.g., Hillary Clinton) to liberal ideology. The grandchildren of the "little old lady from Pasadena" had done their time at UC Whatever and emerged as leftists. As the GOP became more centered in the South, where politicians must at least pay lip service to family values, these liberal suburbanites, who feared Jerry Falwell more than Saddam Hussein, rejected the party.
While "damyankees" may be blamed for liberal trends in North Carolina and Florida, and Californians for similar patterns in the Rocky Mountain states, the suburban counties in many Northern and West Coast metro areas can only blame the Democrat resurgence on the effect of successful attitude changes promoted by liberal educators and entertainers.
Of course they’re stupid: They’ve been manipulated ever since Roosevelt (with briefs periods of fighting back and actually influencing policy such as the Reagan years, or for a few years Newt Gingrich’s influence..).
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust is a 501(c)(3) tax exempt charity. Bill Gates has given some $30+ billion in MS stock and Warren Buffett has pledged some $50 billion. Both of these gifts are tax exempt and allow both Gates and Buffett to avoid paying some $24+ billion in estate taxes.
Both Gates and Buffet are big advocates of keeping the estate tax. They both think it’s unfair to give “big tax breaks to the super rich.”
By giving their money to the Foundation Trust, both men are cheating the government of its fair share of their estates. Neither man is behaving in a manner consistent with their stated preferences. There’s a word for that, I just can’t remember what it is.
Very good assesment Wallace; which is why I believe the only way to really change the nation is to change their hearts (and minds); the only real way is to “Preach the word of God”, thereby keeping people out of Hell (and saving their souls, and lives here now temporally), but also in the process SAVING America.
Hmmm, very interesting. I have two lib sisters (both very well-off..or wealthy) who have lived in a western Chicago burb for thirty years. Over the years they've continually complained to me about the overwhelming dominance of Republicans in their workplaces and their neighborhoods. I guess is the burbs are trending liberal, my sisters will be very happy.
The estate tax has its more devastating effect on businesses in the $5 million and up range, including family businesses and farms. Such people are generally not wealthy in the Bill Gates/Warren Buffett mode, but are upper middle class. They may be able to afford overseas vacations, but not second homes in the Swiss Alps or the Tuscan countryside. However, the typical union or minority supporter of the Democrats will fail to distinguish between the family that runs the local independent bank or soft drink bottling plant and the 1000 wealthiest Americans.
The Senate will not consider a plan to extract billions in extra taxes from megamillionaire hedge fund managers. The decision by Senate majority leader Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat, surprised many Washington insiders, who saw the plan as appealing to the spirit of class warfare that infuses the Democratic party. Liberal disappointment in Mr Reid was palpable at media outlets such as USA Today, where an editorial chastised: "The Democrats, who control Congress and claim to represent the middle and lower classes, ought to be embarrassed." ...the demographic reality is that, in America, the Democratic party is the new "party of the rich"...Democrats now control the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions. More than half of the wealthiest households are concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats control both Senate seats.I guess that means the conservative split is fatal, huh? ;')
When Charles Barkley's mom found out he was a republican she said, "Son, how can you be a republican? They're for the rich people!"
Barkley said, "Ma, I'm RICH!"