Democrats party of rich, study finds

They're BOTH parties of the rich.

59% of our nation's wealth is held by 5% of the population. They're the ones running the country either politically or economically or both. They're in charge.

The only difference is that the Republicans are more Fascist and the Democrats are more Socialist.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Nov 23 2007, 11:18 AM) [snapback]543294[/snapback]</div>

Agreed

Our economy is based on the illusion of unlimited resources and the exlclusion of human capital so it's ultimately doomed in the long run anyway. LOL Norway or Sweden is looking better and better every day.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(amped @ Nov 23 2007, 02:13 PM) [snapback]543291[/snapback]</div>

Not surprising. More wealth = better educated, better educated = more likely to be Democrat.

 

By offering programs to help the poor (New deal, Great Society, etc.) the Democrats used to be able to count on the votes of the poor. But as these programs have been dismantled, the patterns are changing. Now the democrats only talk of the need to help the poor, without actually giving the poor anything.

At the same time, the Republicans have learned to appeal to the superstition and bigotry of the uneducated, most of whom are poor, making themselves the preferred party for Christian zealots, homophobes, and right-to-life-ers. (Three categories which sometimes overlap, but not necessarily.)

Wealthy people are likely to be fiscally conservative, so that they were more likely to support Goldwater than L.B.J., but as the Republicans have abandoned fiscal conservativism in favor of fiscal irresponsibility, those of the wealthy class not directly profiting from the corruption of the administration of the day are more likely to see the new fiscal conservativism of the Democrats as very appealing.

Thus the uneducated poor abandon the party that abandoned them, and choose instead the party of religious demagoguery, and the wealthy abandon the party which no longer protects their wealth (because it adopts policies that will lead to national bankruptcy) and moves to the party which stands today where their historical party stood several decades ago.

And thus the "party of the poor" becomes the "party of the rich" and the "party of the rich" becomes the "party of the poor", though, as Godiva points out, both parties are owned and run by the rich, as they both have always been, from their founding.

 

Republicans are the party of greed and greedy bastards.
The rich Democrats dont feel the need to soak the public so that they can personally gain . They are actually willing to personally pay more for the greater good.
Warren Buffet is a good example.So are Barbara Streisand and Steven Spielberg ,whom are two of the highest DNC contributors.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 23 2007, 04:31 PM) [snapback]543353[/snapback]</div>

The Democrats fought plans by Bush's Labor Dept, to change the laws regarding overtime pay .They have consistently fought to raise the minimum wage.
Universal health care would help the poor and middle class more than any other legislation.
Give the Democrats 60 seats in the Senate before you judge their performance.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Nov 23 2007, 04:50 PM) [snapback]543362[/snapback]</div>

Don't need to. All one needs to do is look at Clinton, the man who gladly signed NAFTA into law and who worked to dismantle the welfare system to see the Democrats not only abandoned the poor, they stomped on the poor with their Prada boots.

Yeah, they're still better than the Republicans in terms of helping the poor, but that's like saying they're better than Jack the Ripper in terms of women's rights.