Posted on 11/23/2007 11:23:23 AM PST by shrinkermd
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
There’s a real suprise for you. Heck, Kerry and Kennedy probably are pikers compared to some others.
Remember the book “What’s Wrong with Kansas?” where the theory was posited that even though Kansas is mostly working class / middle class people, they vote Republican, seemingly “against” their own interests? When is someone going to write a book about the rich voting against their own interests, voting for the tax and spend Democrats?
Hardastarboard: keen observations. Personally, I think it’s guilt that makes the ultra-rich Dems rationalize this particular effect.
Voting for “tax and spend” policies is NOT against the best interests of the very wealthy.
In this country, wealth is not taxed, only income. By carefully monitoring the sources and disposition of income, the very wealthy are often able to avoid virtually all taxation on whatever income they claim. Every special clause in the tax code may be traced to the careful construction of just these very interests to conform just exactly to those guidelines, and therefore escape “fair” taxation.
Getting these exemptions into the law involves gaining political position, with the special union cards of “MBA” and “law degree”. These may be purchased for the younger members of wealthy families, in the form of an elective office, or appointment to some post within government that is not limited to the “pleasure of the President”, say to some administrative board, or even to a Federal court at some level.
Thus you see the phenomenon of a very wealthy person, elevated to an office that pays essentially pocket change, making and executing tax and spending policy that seems to be both wasteful and ineffective, while taking extraordinarily huge bites out of the productive capabilities of start-up capitalists and smaller businesses.
Just because there so many of these sheep to be fleeced. That is the attraction for Democratican office-seekers.
This is not to say that among the very wealthy, there are not fair-minded and compassionate people. It is just that none of these fair-minded and compassionate people are Democraticans.
Surveys similar to this one have been done about charitable giving. Some of the residents of poorest states (mostly “red states”) give the highest percentage of their income to charity.
Conversely, some of the residents of the richest “blue” states give a very low percentage of their incomes to charity. Either the richer people are stingy or else they consider the government a charity and thus don’t mind paying higher taxes.
Well that explains the whole increase my taxes please mantra I keep hearing. They can afford it.
The Republicans have long been bifurcated - wealthy and blue collar/farmer.
The Democrats absolutely have a wealthy constituency - I dont see why that would surprise anybody.
What drug pushers do with drugs, Democrats do with Govt subsides.
[Since 2000, according to published reports, the former veep has transformed himself from a public servant with around $1 million in the bank to a sparkling private consultant with a net worth estimated to be north of $100 million. He’s a senior adviser to Google, a board member at Apple and now a newly minted general partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, the Silicon Valley venture-capital firm that made billions investing early in Netscape, Amazon and Google.]
I never will understand why successful capitalists would support someone who wants to take their money away and give it to someone else.
If they want to do “good” there are plenty of worthy charities they can give their money to instead of donating it to libs who will try to use the State to do “good”.
The powerful often vote DEM because they get subsidies and can influence things easier.
When will someone write a book showing how poor people are better served by stronger business and smaller government.
Tax the Rich!
The Democrats are good at making everyone else poor.
Well, yeah. Start with Euro-socialist George Soros and then move along to gigolo John Kerry, Ted “bootlegger inheritance” Kennedy, and ambulance chaser John Edwards. I understand even Gore is a billionaire. The list goes on forever.
BTTT
A lot of these wealthy people have become well off from federal contracts. That’s why they are Democrats. Plus they like the social liberalism of the Democrats.
I am pretty sure that such books have already been written, but I cannot cite title and author. The sheeple only believe what Brian Williams, Oprah et al tell them.
They must benefit from big government, which means more contracts to the favored few.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.