Party of the Rich: In Congress, It's the Democrats

Here's an interesting article that shows the tables turning, at least here in the U.S. political system.

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.

I personally think that we have to abolish the political party system, as it is divisive. Not only that, but the party system is hoodwinking the nation, and pretending to be something they're not. I also think that conversely, the Republicans may not be instituting policies that help their constituents reach that American dream. Do you feel conned by Congress?

Party of the Rich in Congress: Democrats

www.rollcall.com...

according to this...it's about 30 republicans to 20 democrats in the 50 richest members of congress.

The top guy is a republican although the democrats absolutely own the top 10.

As the States that receive the most Benefits from the Federal Government because they are the least well off are Red States, it should be no surprise to find that Democrats along with their States are Wealthier.

The states with elected officials most likely to espouse anti-taker sentiments -- i.e., Republican-dominated states -- are the most dependent on federal spending, while returning the least to Washington in the way of tax dollars.

GOP States Are The Most Dependent On Government

Newsflash if the Democrats walked their talk.

There would not be any 'rich' democrats.

You know the kind that go kite surfing, or own their own yachts.

Or sell snake oil crying about the planet who rides around on their multimillion dollar private jets.

And there wouldn't be any 'billionaires' like that guys who names starts with am S and ends with an S.

BritofTexas
As the States that receive the most Benefits from the Federal Government because they are the least well off are Red States, it should be no surprise to find that Democrats along with their States are Wealthier.

The states with elected officials most likely to espouse anti-taker sentiments -- i.e., Republican-dominated states -- are the most dependent on federal spending, while returning the least to Washington in the way of tax dollars.

GOP States Are The Most Dependent On Government

Then tell me why there are more people on welfare in California,and New York

Than my entire home states population.

That article is a lie.

reply to post by brazenalderpadrescorpio


Youre talking about the Republicrats vs the Demlicans.

When it comes to national agendas, theres hardly an ounce of difference between the two.

Bankster bailouts, endless wars, warrant-less spying, the police state etc.

Theres a handful of politicians (literally) who are above the corruption.

Actually, with the exception of Ron Paul, I cant think of any...

neo96
Newsflash if the Democrats walked their talked.

There would not be any 'rich' democrats.

You know the kind that go kite surfing, or own their own yachts.

Or sell snake oil crying about the planet who rides around on their multimillion dollar private jets.

And there wouldn't be any 'billionaires' like that guys who names starts with am S and ends with an S.

Your post is just ignorance. The Democrats have never said anything like there should be no rich people just that they should pay their fair share in taxes. And the evil Soros who did to the banks just like the banks had been doing to the people.

neo96

BritofTexas
As the States that receive the most Benefits from the Federal Government because they are the least well off are Red States, it should be no surprise to find that Democrats along with their States are Wealthier.

The states with elected officials most likely to espouse anti-taker sentiments -- i.e., Republican-dominated states -- are the most dependent on federal spending, while returning the least to Washington in the way of tax dollars.

GOP States Are The Most Dependent On Government

Then tell me why there are more people on welfare in California,and New York

Than my entire home states population.

That article is a lie.

More than likely there are more people on welfare because the companies they work at don't pay them a livable wage. And the article isn't a lie Republican states do receive the most government aid. So much for the be self reliant BS the Republicans like to mouth off about.

This is not really significant in that it is imo ignoring the most important aspect, and just going off of the representatives for a large area. That will not really give an accurate picture. It is common sense imo that anyone who must pay employees, or has an interest in a company that pays employees, would not want to raise the minimum wage, IF they are paying any of their employees minimum wage. The opposition to anything that would cost a business more money, or hurt their profits, has more often than not been opposed by republicans. That says a lot.

reply to post by buster2010

Your post is just ignorance. The Democrats have never said anything like there should be no rich people just that they should pay their fair share in taxes. And the evil Soros who did to the banks just like the banks had been doing to the people. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

IS that right ?

Interesting:

Nearly half of American tax filers will pay no federal income taxes this year, according to data released by the Tax Policy Center.

Some 76 million tax filers, or 46.4 percent of the total, will be exempt from federal income tax in 2011

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Yep someone isn't paying their 'fair share'.

That 'fair share' is thinking that payroll taxes, and capital gains are the same thing.

Which is why them 'evil' rich get double taxes, and tripled, taxed, and other BS is created like Alternative minimum taxes.

For the record.

Banks don't print money out of their rears.

The Democrats created that thing called the federal reserve that does that.

reply to post by buster2010

More than likely there are more people on welfare because the companies they work at don't pay them a livable wage. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Companies aren't paying a 'livable' wage ?

Companies are matching their social security contributions, their medicare contributions, their unemployment insurance, and their workmans comp insurance.

They are getting paid a 'iiviable' wage ?

YES THEY ARE.

All so they can 'live comfortable' by taking cash from the evil rich so they can go out, and buy more stuff.

What a joke.

As in all things in American life, it's not really about Republicans vs Democrats or the Right vs the left. That list I posted shows a pretty much even divide in Rich congressmen from Democrats and Republicans. We just make it a war against right and left. In real life, it's never like that.

It's also worth remembering that this story was probably planted by the elites to make the Republicans and Democrats fight with each other, and not notice the real things that they are up to. Curb your ideology.

I don't and never will care about the personal wealth of a politician. I care if they understand the issues at hand of what they are representing.
I also think that parties should be dissolved. people should be forced to learn of a politicians stances verses a partys stances when voting...parties should be seen as scandalous to be a part of, not some requirement.

A person can be a good blend of both conservative and liberal, some socialism, some green, some corporatism, etc...but we are demanding black and white, no hindsight, no mix and match (like most of the voters are anyhow, a bit of both sides in different areas)

But yeah, I don't care if the person is a billionare, or if (s)he is impoverished...if they understand the needs of those whom he/she represents and has a commonsense way to approach issues using statistics and facts, that's what truly matters.

Romney got a lot of flack for being rich..but it wasn't because he was rich, its because he seemed to understand only the rich lifestyle...I don't know how much Obama, McCain, Palin, or the rest in recent history are worth, because they weren't acting like Thurstin Howell running for president of the yacht club.

neo96
All so they can 'live comfortable' by taking cash from the evil rich so they can go out, and buy more stuff.

What a joke.

Been a few threads now where you have said this line overall...
You seem to try and make a point that people of lesser means only buy stuff when they have more money....

Yeah...that's sort of the point in a capitalist society...if the rich people would buy more stuff, then the economy would be booming. savings is a good idea personally, but for a capitalist society, spending and buying more stuff is the only way it survives.

Its sort of why the economic majors always thumbs up things like stimulus packages and the like..the less than rich class will indeed take that money and instead of save, will go buy stuff...which in turn makes companies have to make more stuff, and the rise in demand requires more people to get employed, more competition, higher wages to attract the employees, whom then buy more stuff, etc.

Are you new here or something? You say tons and tons of stuff I disagree with, but this bit simply makes no sense..

or...unless it is as you said, just a joke???

Show me a congressperson that isn't wealthy.
If you find some, they are either honest or stupid.

reply to post by butcherguy

Show me a congressperson that isn't wealthy.

The ones whom are not wealthy are the ones we should be paying attention too! Other than possibly owing more favors to those whom lent them money to get elected in the first place, by not being wealthy, just means the lobbyists haven't pimped them out yet!

The whole idea of having enough wealth to become an elected official seems to be one of the biggest issues we have to address in this corrupt system!

They are not wealthy for a reason. That being, they haven't sold their soul to the status quo government whom cares not about the Constitution OR the United States of America, but the power and wealth they can accumulate by turning their backs on the principles that founded our country......

reply to post by SaturnFX

Been a few threads now where you have said this line overall.

So ?

You seem to try and make a point that people of lesser means only buy stuff when they have more money....

Well they sure the hell aren't saving by throwing it into a bank account that pays .01% per year.

Yeah...that's sort of the point in a capitalist society..

Really ?

if the rich people would buy more stuff, then the economy would be booming. savings is a good idea personally, but for a capitalist society, spending and buying more stuff is the only way it survives. -

Is that so ?

Taking money from the evil rich so someone else can buy more stuff takes money out of the economy.

More so in fact since the middle man gets the biggest cut like the government.

But then again what is the difference?

Money that government created still ends up in them evil rich's pockets or corporate pockets.

Its sort of why the economic majors always thumbs up things like stimulus packages and the like -

Because there idiots.

Spending money we don't have so people can go out and buy more stuff.

That makes them evil rich people. Them evil corporations more money!

he less than rich class will indeed take that money and instead of save, will go buy stuff...

The fundamental difference between rich,middle, poor.

IS the bloody evil rich put their money to work for them.

Of course they are not putting that cash in to checking accounts, or savings accounts, or money markets, or CD's.

The Democrats made sure that those investment vehicles don't return jacksnip snip.

Because people are not suppose to use banks or that evil wall street to increase their standard of living.

They are suppose to use government to rob from the rich so the so called less fortunate can go out, and buy more stuff.

The people who constantly cry about the rich are the people that make no sensee.

How humans ever became top of the food chain is dumbfounding.

Since the 'masses' think they can't survive without government.

That's the joke.

neo96

if the rich people would buy more stuff, then the economy would be booming. savings is a good idea personally, but for a capitalist society, spending and buying more stuff is the only way it survives. -

Is that so ?

Taking money from the evil rich so someone else can buy more stuff takes money out of the economy.

Seriously...how are you even pretending this is a true statement?
No, the economy is built on buying and selling of items and services
Tucking it in a bank serves only the bank in question
going out and buying crap moves the motors of industry.

This is not some sort of highly advanced understanding of economics..its actually the core of any economy...less buying and selling = stagnation, more = booming. Take any economics course and it is the first most basic lesson taught.

Still not understanding your view on this. you seem to be arguing that saving money is good for the economy, and spending it to get commerce rolling is bad...
I feel like I tapped into some alternate universe where up is down, left is right, and savings = economic stability.

One of the (few) things Bush said that was actually correct

I think it's an issue that it's not a true representation.

You should have wealthy politicians but also many from the middle class and below, both sexes all races and all religions and walks of life. All ages, we need both young and old in congress to get all points of view. AS it stands now, it's mainly wealthy and mainly middle aged and older.