Skip to comments.Party of the rich: In Congress, it's the Democrats [6 richest Congressional districts all voted Dem]
Posted on 03/31/2014 3:49:45 AM PDT by grundle
Republicans are the party of the rich, right? It's a label that has stuck for decades, and you're hearing it again as Democrats complain about GOP opposition to raising the minimum wage and extending unemployment benefits.
But in Congress, the wealthiest among us are more likely to be represented by a Democrat than a Republican. Of the 10 richest House districts, only two have Republican congressmen. Democrats claim the top six, sprinkled along the East and West coasts. Most are in overwhelmingly Democratic states like New York and California.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
The AP is reporting this? I just saw a pig fly by my window and it was glowing pink too!
And it took how long to admit this...
Even Steve Kroft on CBS’ 60 Minutes was quicker to admit that Nancy Pelosi made almost 100 million dollars in addition to her worth by being in Congress, and trading stocks with information not available to the average person.
This is why the GOPe’s lame new attempt to win back middle class and working class voters with “pro-growth” policies is misguided. These policies amount to little more than shifting the tax burden away from the rich and onto the rest of us on the theory that the Mitt Romney types will create more jobs if they get richer. Never mind the fact that the problem is not lack of growth, but declining incomes.
Effective politics is about rewarding friends and punishing enemies. It makes no sense to advocate lower capital gains or corporate taxes until wealthy interests rethink their hardcore devotion to the gay agenda, open borders and multiculturalism.
They are all sleeping in the same bed
A policy agenda of social conservatism with nothing for economic conservatives will not be supported by the American people. Think of having a vibrant economy as the price you have to pay in order to use the government to keep people from being happy.
How About Donors?
...... by party including both party donors
I think economic conservatism is not the same think as playing Santa Claus for the super wealthy who make millions a year from investment income.
I never heard of this AP writer. Clearly an infiltrator. He will be canned soon enough.
Wow, et tu AP?
CT4 is a swing district, but some fraud was made in the POOR city of Bridgeport. If that city was not in the district it would have a RINO in it.
The rich districts also have many less-affluent people, the servants of the wealthy.
The two Republican districts are one in the South (Virginia), and the one in NJ, in an area which has many retirees, who are obviously older, and tend to be more conservative on most issues.
It is the rich urban and urban-connected districts which are notably Democrat. There are many factors involved: ethnic, and occupational. The working rich tend to be conservative; the windfall rich (suddenly wealthy through luck of the investment lottery, performance arts, or law) tend to be liberal. There also is an ethnic element: Jews tend to be Democrat by an astonishing percentage, although logic indicates that by philosophy they should be conservative. The trouble is that many Jews do not really follow Jewish teaching, and their grandparents came to America when socialism was all the rage in Europe. They carried the socialist attitude with them, though they should have outgrown it by now (as many outstanding Jewish conservatives have).
Many Asian immigrants vote Democrat, although their interests clearly should be with the Republicans. Hispanics are 2 to 1 Democrat, which is why the immigration issue is stoked in the media, to make them think that they are obligated to the liberals. Actually, logic would suggest that immigrants should favor the Republicans, who should stand for opportunity, rather than the servile dependence of the Democrats. Someone from México make take time to learn these things: a few generations, and by then it may be too late.
“Never mind the fact that the problem is not lack of growth, but declining incomes.”
The problem is the demand for manufactured products is now fulfilled by overseas factories, not by US factories employing US citizens. The deindustrialization of the United States, combined with arbitrary had heavy government regulation dispensed to benefit the politically connected, has resulted in:
1) A stagnant economy
2) Declining standards of living
3) High unemployment and the related social programs - crime, substance abuse, welfare dependency
4) Reduction in competition as mergers and acquisitions have resulted in the concentration of market share in each market segment in the hands of a few national politically connected mega corporations.
5) Transfer of national wealth from the middle class to the 1%
These will also be the whitest districts. The democrats are far more segregated than they talk.
Your view of what economic conservatism should mean is not nothing but it doesn’t count for much. What counts is what each voter, party activist and contributor thinks.
For Republicans, winning generally means combining social conservatives, economic conservatives and security conservatives; plus, revving up the base and appealing to enough swing and independent voters. It’s not the only conceivable game plan; but it has been our game plan for a while.
The idea that economic conservatives would accept a social conservative agenda combined with a populist economic agenda is strange. But, were the Republican Party to shift in that direction, a party would emerge that combined social liberalism and free-market economics; as a third party or a replacement for the Democratic Party or as the new Democratic Party (think of Grover Cleveland’s Democratic Party).
The Democratic Party is the party of those desiring to patronize the middle class and those willing to be patronized as poor."The Republican Partys natural constituency is the Middle Class, but it is not a reliable defender of it.
As to the issue of moderate top-income-bracket tax rates, that is not a matter of concern to the top earners only. After all, strivers want to build up their fortunes - and abusive taxation is the bane of ambition.
The AP is running this exact same story today, even dating it October 16.
Ha ha! Thanks for pointing that out!