Subscribe By Email

Worthy Causes


Categories

December 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      

« Nuts | Main | "Nothing fails like prayer" »

Friday, November 23, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834516bb169e200e54f9fc4ad8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Democrats: Party of the Rich:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Morgan K Freeberg

Well let's see. So many of their policies make it more expensive and difficult to employ people, that pattern in itself is impossible to ignore...obviously, being employed would be a major issue for the poor. Their obsession with "choice" is practically the stuff of legend, and anyone who's studied the current events involved, as well as the history of the "abortion movement" should be well aware of the intertwining between abortion and dysgenics. Dysgenics is all about getting rid of the poor people, so that clearly isn't in the interest of the poor either.

They want to ensure a "college education for all" but what they're really all about is making sure it's impossible to get a job without a college degree, however meaningless that degree is in terms of knowledge acquired. They want to get rid of all the guns, and if you happen to live in an area with a less-than-impressive 911 response time and you REALLY need the gun, well, screw you.

They are champions of the no-fault divorce, and they like to say it is needed desperately by people (women) trapped in a "hopeless marriage" -- but you only have to read "Freedomnomics" by John R. Lott to see how damaging that is economically to women, especially poor women. Nobody, to my knowledge, has connected this jealously guarded "death tax" to the actual raising of revenue, it's become impossible to deny that the death tax is all about descending on privately-held businesses that were built up through the generations, that might be employing hundreds if not thousands of "poor people" and scattering those businesses to the four winds, often in areas of the country where jobs are few and far between.

They're all buddy-buddy with the unions, and it isn't hard to find people who work for, or must work with, a union -- with massive reasons for questioning what kind of help a union is actually providing to those who the union likes to call "workers."

Issue by issue. They're consistently anti-poor-people. They like to say otherwise, as you point out, but isn't exactly that what an anti-poor-people party would say? "I'm not piddling on your shoe; it's raining!"

Michael Poole

I hate to break it to you, but a majority of *all* Congressional districts are represented by Democrats. Unless the rich districts are significantly more likely to have Democratic Representatives than other districts, this does not seem like interesting news.

Wikipedia's article on the 110th Congress says that Democrats make up about 54% of the entire House. 58% of the top one-third could easily be a statistical fluke. (Among outspoken super-rich Americans, I would guess Democrats do have a much larger lead, but fortunately the super-rich do not have more power at the ballot box than any other American.)

Mike

Having worked at a Talking Book Library for the Blind for six years, I can assure you that it would be easy for your readers to read plain, dark Arial text than the italicized font you are now using.
Please consider it for all posts.

fourmorewars

Hi. Liberal here, bursting your bubble (apologies).

It's not enough that Greg Sargent has pointed out the absurdity of saying the Dems hold slightly more than 50% of 'the 167 wealthiest districts'...when their OVERALL % of seats held is HIGHER.

This should drive the point home even more:

http://www.techpolitics.org/congress/110fh1.php?sort_field=Party&sort_order=asc

Go ahead, average out the districts (the mhi figure is for 2000, but the list of congresspeople is the current one).

Dem districts: on average, $2700 POORER than Republican ones.

So, nice try.

Mommynator

Nice attempt at deflection.

We were talking about the representatives. The fact that their policies make their constituencies poorer is a given.

NH

Why was this article removed from the WaTimes?

Democrats party of rich, study finds
www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071123/NATION/111230087/1002 - Similar pages -

When you look that up in Google, you can click and find it gone. It seems only to have been posted on 11/23/2007

NH

OK I found it!

Democrats party of rich, study finds

By Donald Lambro November 23, 2007

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.

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."

"I just found the pattern across the board to be very interesting. That pattern
shows the likelihood of electing a Democrat to the House is very closely
correlated with how many wealthy households are in that district," Mr. Franc
said in an interview with The Washington Times.

"A fair number of these districts are represented by freshmen, a lot of the guys
who got elected in 2006," he said.

"The demographic reality is that the Democratic Party is the new 'party of the
rich.' More and more Democrats represent areas with a high concentration of
wealthy households," he wrote on Nov. 5 in the Financial Times of London, in a
preview of his study.

In addition, the current Senate tax debate provides an example of how the
Democrats' rich constituents are influencing their agenda and have divided House
and Senate Democrats.

In the House, for example, Democrats have made elimination of the alternative
minimum tax, known as the AMT, the centerpiece of a sweeping tax-revision plan
crafted by Rep. Charles B. Rangel of New York, the chairman of the House Ways
and Means Committee. The AMT law was passed by the Democratic Congress in 1969
to make sure that wealthy taxpayers — some of whom were able to use tax breaks
to avoid paying anything — paid at least some taxes.

Over the years, as many middle-class incomes rose, people were increasingly
being pushed into higher tax brackets once reserved for only the richest
Americans. The largest portion of these taxpayers live predominantly in
Northeastern "blue" states dominated by Democrats, who, inundated by constituent
complaints, soon began joining their Republican counterparts in pushing to
eliminate the AMT.

But the strongest manifestation of the influence that the Democrats' wealthiest
constituencies are wielding over party policy came earlier this month as
Democratic leaders were considering a proposal to offset revenue losses from AMT
repeal by raising taxes on hedge-fund managers, many of whom are major
contributors to the Democratic Party.

A "stopgap" bill authored by Mr. Rangel to tax hedge-fund compensation at 35
percent as regular income rather than the current 15 percent capital-gains rate,
which passed the House Nov. 9, appears to be going nowhere with Senate
Democrats.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York, the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial
Campaign Committee, which has raised tens of millions of dollars from Wall
Street financiers and hedge-fund managers, opposes Mr. Rangel's plan. Earlier
this month, Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, the chairman of the tax-writing Finance
Committee, said the tax increase was a bad idea and could not pass the Senate.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the House Democratic Caucus chairman, also has
said he wants a stand-alone fix for the AMT without an offsetting tax increase,
fearing that any vote to raise taxes now will hurt vulnerable Democrats in next
year's elections. More moderate Blue Dog Democrats in the House have also been
among the critics of the tax increase.

Some Democrats acknowledge that moneyed interests are exerting a strong
influence on their party's agenda and legislation.

"The fact is that [the Democratic campaign committees] have had large
contributions from these hedge-fund folks," said Dean Baker, co-director of the
Center for Economic and Policy Research, a liberal think tank.

"As far as the hedge funds and tax breaks go, the Democrats are clearly getting
a lot of money from people who are affected by that, and they're responding,"
Mr. Baker said.

Mr. Franc thinks this turnabout by Democrats, whose campaign mantra has long
been to tax the rich more, is only the beginning.

"Increasingly, we will see Democrats responding to the economic demands of this
particular upper-income constituency," he said.

"What the data suggests is that there will be a natural limit to how far and how
much the Democrats can sock it to the rich, because in doing so, it means they
will have to sock it to their own constituents," Mr. Franc said.

chuck aka xtnyoda

Anybody want to guess how drastic the negative impact is going to be on the poor over the implementation of AGW regulations?

Jim Hansen over at Goddard now gives us only four years to fix the globe:

...Cap-and-trade schemes, in which emission permits are bought and sold, have failed, he said, and must now be replaced by a carbon tax that will imposed on all producers of fossil fuels. At the same time, there must be a moratorium on new power plants that burn coal...

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/18/jim-hansen-obama

What he means by "cap and trade schemes" is Al's failed veiled tax... therefore they must head for the real deal.

Taxing energy over the lies of AGW is not only a hoax, it is the single most drastic assault on the poor ever conceived in human history.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

BlogAds


Tip Jar


Plainly Offsetting Costs


Search Brutally Honest


  • Google

    WWW
    www.brutallyhonest.org

BlogStuff

Visitors


Creative Commons License

Plainly Quotable