WSJ: Rich people far more likely to vote Republican than working-class.

[haymarket]

it appears you want to make your rants about me. YOu seem consumed with envy. I have never made any claim to higher breeding or culture. Your obsession with someone you don't know is rather creepy. I don't want any worship, I want people like you to stop demanding those of us who already pay far more in taxes than what we use pay even more. NOthing more nothing less

WOW!!!! i get the impression you want your posts to be about Y...O... U .... and you being able to lord it over everybody with your supposed family background, your supposed Ivy League education, your supposed profession, your supposed knowledge, your supposed experience and your supposed wealth. You certainly have worked that in enough lately.

So do not blame me for what you broadcast here and boast about. When you point the finger at me you have three pointing right back at you. My dad was not rich or wealthy or educated in some fancy prep school - but he taught me that much.

 

[TurtleDude]

WOW!!!! i get the impression you want your posts to be about Y...O... U .... and you being able to lord it over everybody with your supposed family background, your supposed Ivy League education, your supposed profession, your supposed knowledge, your supposed experience and your supposed wealth. You certainly have worked that in enough lately.

So do not blame me for what you broadcast here and boast about. When you point the finger at me you have three pointing right back at you. My dad was not rich or wealthy or educated in some fancy prep school - but he taught me that much.

you seem to have some self esteem issues tinged with envy of those who apparently are better off than you are. YOur father obviously didn't teach you that you are responsible for yourself because you spend so much time demanding others pay for your way.

 

[Badfish420]

you apparently do not understand either the term trapped nor incriminating

try again

no i understand them pretty well.

now, lets go over this. you attempted to justify your mother's conservative standing (and via extension, you) by painting a picture of a classic rags to riches story. but easily, I pointed out that YOU were born into a comfortable middle class existence, so your entire arguement from 'if could make it, you can' is null and void.

second, your attempt to salvage any point that you tried to make with this has been knocked down again and again, but you comeback with statements like the one above

when it is you who should probably take a step back and try again.

conclusion: your arguement was completely and utterly destroyed, but you persist with child-like posts that hold no meaning or relevance and basically amount to "lalalalala i dont hear you"

 

[TurtleDude]

no i understand them pretty well.

now, lets go over this. you attempted to justify your mother's conservative standing (and via extension, you) by painting a picture of a classic rags to riches story. but easily, I pointed out that YOU were born into a comfortable middle class existence, so your entire arguement from 'if could make it, you can' is null and void.

second, your attempt to salvage any point that you tried to make with this has been knocked down again and again, but you comeback with statements like the one above

when it is you who should probably take a step back and try again.

conclusion: your arguement was completely and utterly destroyed, but you persist with child-like posts that hold no meaning or relevance and basically amount to "lalalalala i dont hear you"

my mother was a dem operative.

you are making a fool of yourself

 

[Badfish420]

my mother was a dem operative.

you are making a fool of yourself

grandmother then, whatever the hell you said. the point is that YOU are making a fool of yourself and your posts have the air of a five-year old.

you lost. deal with it and move on

 

[TurtleDude]

grandmother then, whatever the hell you said. the point is that YOU are making a fool of yourself and your posts have the air of a five-year old.

you lost. deal with it and move on

what did I lose badfish? I am watching you make a fool of yourself. being "very liberal" is usually the sign of immaturity in my experience. How old are you?

You dont like my views-I am ok with that. I tire of being told I have a duty to pay far more taxes than I receive in benefits. I don't owe you anything and I expect nothing from you-sorry if that bothers you

 

[haymarket]

you seem to have some self esteem issues tinged with envy of those who apparently are better off than you are. YOur father obviously didn't teach you that you are responsible for yourself because you spend so much time demanding others pay for your way.

What evidence do you have to make statements about my own individual situation?

 

[RightinNYC]

what did I lose badfish? I am watching you make a fool of yourself. being "very liberal" is usually the sign of immaturity in my experience. How old are you?

His username is a song from a Sublime album followed by 420. He's obviously an aged and distinguished scholar within his field.

 

[TurtleDude]

His username is a song from a Sublime album followed by 420. He's obviously an aged and distinguished scholar within his field.

I roomed with a Rhodes Scholar in college and another ended up being a supreme court clerk and on Bush's short list of possible supreme court justices. I saw the same level of academic rigor in his posts.:mrgreen:

 

[TurtleDude]

What evidence do you have to make statements about my own individual situation?

I used the same evidence you used to make comments about me. I figure what's good for the donkey is good for the elephant

 

[haymarket]

I used the same evidence you used to make comments about me. I figure what's good for the donkey is good for the elephant

I have no idea what you are talking about since i told you practically nothing. So explain it step by step then please.

You have badly exposed you self in several threads as a hollow braggart, a faux elitist and as someone who cannot support much of what you say with any evidence. Now you are about to add to that inventing lies about those who simply disagree with you.

This site is about debate. Please debate. it is not about statements of faith or belief without support to go with them.

 

[TurtleDude]

I have no idea what you are talking about since i told you practically nothing. So explain it step by step then please.

You have badly exposed you self in several threads as a hollow braggart, a faux elitist and as someone who cannot support much of what you say with any evidence. Now you are about to add to that inventing lies about those who simply disagree with you.

This site is about debate. Please debate. it is not about statements of faith or belief without support to go with them.

Actually it appears to be about comedy.

 

[Badfish420]

His username is a song from a Sublime album followed by 420. He's obviously an aged and distinguished scholar within his field.

attacking my username? classy. and besides who doesn't like sublime

 

[TurtleDude]

attacking my username? classy. and besides who doesn't like sublime

What attack-and that was news to me. I figured real music sort of stopped after Joe Strummer died

 

[Badfish420]

I figured real music sort of stopped after Joe Strummer died

I'll give you that

 

[RightinNYC]

attacking my username? classy. and besides who doesn't like sublime

Nothing wrong with sublime or 420. Just noting that you're probably not a balding 70 year old dude.

 

[commy]

wow they are coming out of the woodwork

of course the rich get richer. they compete better

sure, paris hilton, wonderful competitor. and yeah that's one example, but you can't seriously be suggesting that because a person a rich, they are somehow better than other people.

edify me as to your brilliance by telling me what would be the state of the union if the rich were not getting richer?

there is a finite amount of wealth. sure it grows, but when that rate is no longer sufficient to maintain the middle class income, the working class wages, and the lower classes ability to simply sustain themselves, something is broken. and that has been the case in the Unite States since 1979.

I realize the socialist mindset (or worse the disease known as communism) holds that the freedom to contract really doesn't exist

if you agree to work for 10 bucks an hour and the guy who provides you a job makes 11 an hour off of your labor I guess you feel exploaited. Of course you cannot figure out that if he doesn't make at least something about 10 an hour he has no reason to employ you

if "the guy" who provides you a job is instead a workers collective, the division of wealth in that scenario would make more sense.


how cna you expect a laborer to work as hard when the managers aren't even capable of doing their job? incompetent lazy managers who have firing priveleges are deciding things, that's no way to maximize labor, efficiency.


the people working the hardest should get paid the most. its a very simple (and logical) concept.

 

[Dutch]

Not as obvious as you might think. source

By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY
Democratic members of the House of Representatives now represent most of the nation's wealthiest people, a sharp turnaround from the long-standing dominance that Republicans have held over affluent districts.
A USA TODAY analysis of new Census data found that Democrats represent a far different constituency today than they did in 2005, when they were the minority in the House, or in 1990, when they were the majority.

The Democratic-controlled House is now an unusual combination of the richest and poorest districts, the best and least educated, and the best and the worst insured. The analysis found that Democrats have attracted educated, affluent whites who had tended previously to vote Republican.

Democrats now represent 57% of the 4.8 million households that had incomes of $200,000 or more in 2008. In 2005, Republicans represented 55% of those affluent households.

"Democrats have made enormous gains in affluent, educated suburban districts," says Warren Glimpse, founder of Proximity, a firm that analyzes demographics. "What's not clear is whether this reflects a profound change or a temporary blip."...........

 

[TurtleDude]

sure, paris hilton, wonderful competitor. and yeah that's one example, but you can't seriously be suggesting that because a person a rich, they are somehow better than other people.



there is a finite amount of wealth. sure it grows, but when that rate is no longer sufficient to maintain the middle class income, the working class wages, and the lower classes ability to simply sustain themselves, something is broken. and that has been the case in the Unite States since 1979.

if "the guy" who provides you a job is instead a workers collective, the division of wealth in that scenario would make more sense.


how cna you expect a laborer to work as hard when the managers aren't even capable of doing their job? incompetent lazy managers who have firing priveleges are deciding things, that's no way to maximize labor, efficiency.


the people working the hardest should get paid the most. its a very simple (and logical) concept.

that is so silly I am LMAO. people who work the hardest should get paid the most. that is like saying the students who spend the most time studying should get A grades even if they test poorly. THe zero sum game nonsense I dispute as well.

 

[Paschendale]

So, which party should the middle and lower class people vote for? Which party actually supports hard working people who weren't born with a silver spoon in their mouths? Which party isn't all about putting more and more money into the pockets of the wealthiest 1%? Oh wait... neither of them... If you vote for any of these jackasses, you vote against your own interests.

 

[TurtleDude]

So, which party should the middle and lower class people vote for? Which party actually supports hard working people who weren't born with a silver spoon in their mouths? Which party isn't all about putting more and more money into the pockets of the wealthiest 1%? Oh wait... neither of them... If you vote for any of these jackasses, you vote against your own interests.

that is an easy answer

what party has a vested interest in having lots of poor dependent people?

I see you are a law stuident-AU? GW? so what are you going to do with your education> work on wall street?

the dem party has more rich politicians than the GOP. the current speaker of the house was born with a silver spoon. THe one we get next month wasn't.

its easy to pretend giving the poor money so they stay addicted to dem leadership is helping the poor

many of us are a bit more realistic.

 

[cpwill]

So, which party should the middle and lower class people vote for? Which party actually supports hard working people who weren't born with a silver spoon in their mouths?

Republicans; given that the vast majority of Millionaires, are, in fact, hard working people who weren't born with a silver spoon in their mouth.

Which party isn't all about putting more and more money into the pockets of the wealthiest 1%?

well you tell me, which party generally favors the free competition that threatens the stability of that wealthiest 1%?

 

[Dutch]

According to a national election poll by Edison Research and presented by the Wall Street Journal, Americans making $200,000 per year were more likely to vote Republican in the recent election by a margin of 62% to 36%, while people earning less than $30,000 per year were more likely to vote Democratic by a margin of 58% to 40%. They break even roughly at the median income point. There you have it: Specific data backing up the ongoing perception that the GOP is the Party of, by, and for the rich - as if anyone didn't already know.

After clicking on the link, wait for the Interactive Graphics to load, then click the "Income" tab to see the relevant data:

Wall Street Journal Link

Not so fast there buddy. :mrgreen:
source

Party of the rich
Comments (0) Share Print By: Examiner Staff Writer 09/16/10 2:00 AM
Examiner Staff Writer
In a column a few days ago in the Washington Examiner, Timothy Carney points out that while the Democrats as "party of the little guy" myth has dragged its self a few more years along, and the idea of the GOP as the party of the rich persists, neither is really true. As it turns out, Democrats are the party of the rich, these days:

Wealthy Individuals Voted for Obama: CNN reported about election 2008: “High income voters — those who said they make at least $100,000 a year –went in Obama’s favor, 52 percent to 47 percent.”
Wealthy Counties Voted for Obama: American’s richest county, Loudoun County, Va., voted Obama 54-46, thus being more Democratic than the rest of Va. and the nation (which were both 53% Obama). Fairfax, Va., the nation’s second-wealthiest county, voted 60% Obama.
Wealthy States Voted for Obama: The three wealthiest states — Maryland, Connecticut, and New Jersey, all voted overwhelmingly for Obama.
Kristin Brown at the Fox News America's Election HQ blog writes that 7 of the top 10 riches Congressmen/Senators are Democrats, and have been for some time now:

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.): $188.6 million
Rep. Darrel Issa (R-Calif.): $160.1 million
Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.): $152.3 million
Sen. Jay Rockefeller ( D-W.Va.): $83.7 million
Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas): $73.8 million
Of course, Teddy Kennedy died earlier this year, taking one of the Democrats off the list, or it would have been 8 of 10. Democratic Party support from the wealthy has been true for years, Rush Limbaugh pointed out in 2002:

Those giving $200 to $999: GOP $68 million; Democrats $44 million.
Those giving $1,000 to $9,999: GOP $317 million; Democrats $307 million.

The "fabulously wealthy" donors of $10,000+ gave $111 million to the GOP – a whopping $29 million less than the $140 million they lavished on the Democrats! Among those who gave $100,000+, the Democrats raised $72 million – more than double the $34 million the GOP took.



Read more at the Washington Examiner: Party of the rich | Washington Examiner........