It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Illusion of the Money Gap in Politics

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 11:47 PM
Although an over simplification, the accepted status is that the Republicans support the Rich and the Democrats are for the poor. If one accepts this as the norm, then the question arises why the richest politicians are currently predominantly Democrats.

Rank Politician (Party) Office or Campaign Net Worth
1 Michael R. Bloomberg (R) Mayor, New York $4.8 billion
2 Winthrop Rockefeller (R) Lt. Governor, Arkansas 1.2 billion
3 B. Thomas Golisano (Ind) Gubernatorial candidate, New York 1.1 billion
4 John Kerry (D) Senator, Massachusetts 550 million
5 Tony Sanchez (D) Gubernatorial candidate, Texas 500 million
6 Amo Houghton (R) Representative, New York 475 million
7 Jon S. Corzine (D) Senator, New Jersey 300 million
8 Herb Kohl (D) Senator, Wisconsin 250 million
9 Jay Rockefeller (D) Senator, West Virginia 200 million
10 Mark R. Warner (D) Governor, Virginia 200 million
Sources: Forbes, Roll Call

This is not exclusive of course as the two that actually top the list are Republicans, yet they are followed by six Democrats and an Independent.

What this indicates to me is the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party and the illusion they create to garner the support of the common man. Republicans do not even attempt to hide the fact that they are huge supporters of the Grand American Experiment and Capitalism. Yet Democrats, though filthy rich even by most Republican standards, do not seem to be donating their money to the poor they so avidly defend.

Though so many on here constantly spout the propaganda about the Bush dynasty, oil etc. He appears to be strangely vacant from the list.


posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 01:15 PM

Originally posted by semperfortis
Although an over simplification, the accepted status is that the Republicans support the Rich and the Democrats are for the poor.

Accepted by whom?

There was a time when the Democrats did support -- well, not just the poor, but the rest of us, against the interests of the rich. I think you could say that about them in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and part way into the 1970s. But you certainly can't say it now.

Why do conservatives always seem to try to steer the dialogue into Democrat vs. Republican? Obviously, because the Democrats and Republicans are both conservative (at least insofar as both have become corporatist toadies of the rich), and if the dialogue is limited to consideration of those two alternatives, conservatives automatically win.

Your argument, Semperfortis, is totally specious, since the fact that a politician is rich doesn't automatically make him support rich people's interests. Franklin Roosevelt didn't, for example. But it's also totally unnecessary. The whole problem in this country today is that there is no liberal party.

What we need to do is step outside the box. Those of us who don't want to see the rich tyrannize the rest of us need to remind the Democrats of what they're supposed to stand for and once did. Comparisons between them and the Republicans need not be made until they figure that out. If they ever do, and start standing for the common people again, they'll win elections hands down, after over 20 years of government backsliding under Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush. The people are ready for another liberal champion, who will return the good life to ordinary people.

posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 02:00 PM
Well said. For someone that does not support the two party system. You are however in the extreme minority.

The rest of us are, the VAST majority of the United States, realistic enough to understand that we in fact do have a two party system and not in my lifetime will another party take a dominate stance.

So the choice is to sit around and complain about it, loudly professing that "I AM A 'WHATEVER'" and Not a Republican or Democrat; never making any real impact on the political scene; or get involved with a party and attempt to make a difference.

I chose to make a difference, no matter how small, or on what level.


Isn't that kind of like a Pacifist Warrior? An Oxymoron?

But Good one anyway.


posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 02:19 PM
Semper buddy.... that attitude is the very reason why a third party will be soo hard to get started and off the ground... there are more of us then you think who are sick and tired of having to choose between one party with two faces... we may have a supposed two party system but we dont have two parties... i appreciate the stats you put up... Its nice to know that some of my assumptions werent wrong.... when every member of the Senate is a Millionaire you stop buying into the idea that one side is not for the rich.... but two steps is right... while not neccesarily about you... but about Dems and Reps.... both sides always bring it down to polarization.... by polarizing the voters no one is willing to work with and compromise with eachother.... this works for the ever present "them".... by dividing us against ourselves they dilute and muffle our voices so that they can all easily say "we cant please everyone" and its not a total lie....

We have moved to the right Semper... so while ur stats are valid... they dont add to the debate.... yes .... we know.... even the supposed left is filthy rich.... but when all of the major news media is owned by the same small group what do you expect.... ONLY the rich can get mainstream media exposure and its that kind of exposure that wins elections.... What I think is illusionary is that there isnt a monetary gap between washington and the rest of the country.... How can a person who has never EVER had to actually do hard labor or go without a meal know wats good for the rest of us.... and that to me is a question that MAYBE MAYBE one senator could answer and even he is questionable (fiengold).....

We need a new party semper.... and it needs to be atleast progressive if not out right liberal.... look at the stats in regards to Fear and conservative lateral movement in the political spectrum of a population.... and then get back to me.... about how we dont or cant have a third party come 08

posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 04:54 PM
I agree with you in theory, not application, on everything except Feingold.

I'm not familiar enough with Him to make an intellectual comment, but I will be.


posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 09:52 AM
thanks for pointing this out Semper

I am getting just as sick of this party as I have become with the republicans...except that at least the republicans dont try to hide the fact that they support the wealthy..the dems on the other hand try to preach the high moral ground ...yet do the same exact crap!

the pseudo-two party dictatorship has revealed its ugly face.. and the truth gets laid bare... There is no real difference bettwen them anymore.. they just play the game to keep the illusion alive.. as thin and frail as it is.. I AM truly suprised that people still think there IS a difference.

To me there is none at all. Criminals and felons..every last one of them.

posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 12:47 AM
So Tone,

How do we go about educating the masses (That Vote) to this situation?

It is no secret that I consider myself a Republican, yet pride myself on voting for the "PERSON" and not straight down party lines. (tell anyone and ill lie!!)

I'm not proud of where my party has gone, I still believe that getting in there, in the party and fighting for change is the only solution.

Still the vast number of voters are uneducated not only about their party, but politics in general.


posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 01:11 AM
Well politicians are just opposite sides of the same coin imho.

Trust neither.

does that make me a "crazy conspiracy theorist"?

I see people all the time who vote strictly for "their side" no matter what, kinda stupid if ya ask me.

But with Diebolds, it looks like it matters naught, lol.

So by those number it confirms, big business has everyone in their pockets

posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 03:14 AM
You cannot change the policy unless you change the people you send to make the policy... and it cannot be in just one state or district... we need a nation wide middle class party... a party whose singular goal is the betterment of the American People not the American Hedge fund..... but this cannot happen unless the people, you me and john Q public.... stand up and make our voices heard.... we need to put aside our special interests and find a common ground where both left and right can feel like the country is moving forward.... history has shown that a country is at its best when it is taking a centrist path with small divergences to either/or the left or right.... Conservatism keeps us from blindly steamrolling into the future with no thought of the danger.... and Liberalism keeps society from becoming stagnant... you cannot have a country that is only liberal or only conservative... Corporations serve a purpose the keep the economy moving forward and they help to bring about new concepts and ideas that require expensive R&D.... but at the same time they cannot run everything... the same must be true of our Congress Judiciary and Executive... while i wouldn't want a HS drop out running the country does it necessarily have to always be an Ivy league graduate.... if State schools are just as good as any school then why haven't we ever elected a non-ivy league graduate to the presidential office... When our senate and congress are primarily millionaires or richer how can they reasonably be expected to understand how their legislation affects their constituents.... when our elected representatives are more and more likely to not live in their districts neighborhoods how can we expect them to understand us, their constituents...

What this post should show everyone who sees it is that their is a fundamental flaw in our electoral process... by not allowing the common man to be elected to office our government has effectively withdrawn from those that they govern... they sit high up in their Washington offices fawned on by the supposed Media.... whether its Fox or MSNBC all of them pander to Washington...

These stats sicken me... but as of yet it doesnt look like it will be changed... because Americans, even here on ATS, are hesitant or hostile towards a third party emergence here in the States. Change is a scary thing... but change is what we need....

[edit on 7-8-2006 by Elsenorpompom]

posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 07:03 AM
"You have voted Elsenorpompom for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month."

That is why I love posting with you!!!!

It is catch 22 however. The majority of voters fall within that age group that only scoffs when we try to bring up change. The ones that will listen, either are extremely not interested, or do not vote anyway.

I would LOVE to see some common sense back in Office, and I'm not just talking the Presidency!!!

A few years ago, I was one that ridiculed conspiracies involving the Bilderbur or the Illuminti, yet now there is serious evidence of possible manipulation on a massive scale.

I am not ready to give up and settle on my property in WV to wait out the coming storm, I still hold out hope for my party. I just hope people open their eyes!!!


posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 09:02 AM

original quote by: Semperfortis
How do we go about educating the masses (That Vote) to this situation?

Just what we are doing.. post it everywhere you can on the net; tell everyopne you know and tell them to tell everyone they know, submit some of this stuff to the MSM if you can...write your reps with the documents you find and tell them how disgusted with them you are.

In other words open your mouth as wide as you can and scream to the world

Semp I have noticed a real shift from you as of late..It takes a very very big person to ever admit that they may have been mistaken/decieved, etc. I am glad that the vail has been removed from your eyes.. I have known since your first post that you are a true patriot.. which is why I have been pushing you so hard to find the truths for yourself..and thats just what you have done. Im very proud of you Semp...for what its worth.

original quote by: Semperfortis
A few years ago, I was one that ridiculed conspiracies involving the Bilderbur or the Illuminti, yet now there is serious evidence of possible manipulation on a massive scale.

I was right there with you. I just have ZERO tolorance for deception and impropriety. Being that I despise anyone(regardless of party affiliation) that is dishonest and power hungry I am always getting bashed from one side or the other. In the ninetees I got it from the Dems when I said Clinton Admin was doing some screwed up things. And now Its the Reps that usually bash me. I feel like Rodney Dangerfield---I get no

original quote by: Semperfortis
I would LOVE to see some common sense back in Office, and I'm not just talking the Presidency!!!

GAAAWWWDDD... wouldnt we all at this point.

original quote by: Semperfortis
Still the vast number of voters are uneducated not only about their party, but politics in general.

that is the crux of the problem isnt it. The problem for most people is that they are so self absorbed in their own lives(for whatever reasons) that they either dont have the time,energy, or patience to learn exactly WHO they are voting for.
EXample: Most people had NO Idea what-so-ever that both Bush and Kerry are skull and bones for life. Let alone what Skull and Bones is. But with people like you , me, elsenpompom and others.. we shall continue to spread the word. and do what we can to try to help make America what it is truly supposed to be.

A land of LIBERTY and JUSTICE for ALL.

Lastly, Elsenpompom, there is too much to quote from your post so Ill give you a shot out..GOOD POST!

May truth and righteousness prevail

posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 12:57 PM

Originally posted by semperfortis
The rest of us are, the VAST majority of the United States, realistic enough to understand that we in fact do have a two party system and not in my lifetime will another party take a dominate stance.

You're missin' the point here, bud. We don't need for a different party to replace one of the main two, we need for one of the main two to become a liberal party, as each of them has been in the past at different times.

The Democratic and Republican parties do not advocate timeless, unchanging policies or political stances. Each of them has changed quite radically over the years it has been in existence.

In its earliest years, the Democratic Party (originally the Democratic-Republican Party) was a party that championed individual rights and the interests of small farmers, against the interests of industrialists. At that time there was no Republican Party.

In the 1850s, the Democrats advocated for the big planters rather than the small farmers, and defended slavery, while the Republicans championed the industrialists and also stood against slavery. Despite their advocacy for industrialists, the Republicans were also the first to stand for workers' rights.

Through the second half of the 19th century, if you were to characterize one party or the other as "liberal," the Republicans would have been the right choice. The most important reformer president of the early 20th century was Theodore Roosevelt. Arguably the most conservative administrations of the post-Civil War era were those of Andrew Johnson and Grover Cleveland, both Democrats. Woodrow Wilson makes the picture a bit fuzzier, as do Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge, but overall the Republicans were more liberal than the Democrats until the 1930s.

In the 1930s, the Democrats experienced a sea change, becoming the party that stood with the working class against the interests of capital. The Republicans, shortly thereafter, morphed into a mossbacked pro-capitalist and isolationist party. But this was not an absolute change. Richard Nixon's administration was more liberal in its policies than any that followed him.

I could continue with this, but you get the point, I imagine. What the parties stand for is not a constant. It is not set in stone. We do not have to accept them as they are now, nor limit ourselves to advocating the current policies of one or the other. We can demand that the Democrats (as the most likely choice) take up again the progressive mantle they once wore, as modified for these times. And then, and ONLY then, can we advocate for that party without hesitation or qualifier.

(It's much less likely that the Republicans would return to THEIR liberal roots, but if they did, while the Dems did not, well, then I'd vote Republican.)

Regarding your final foray into silliness: I strongly suggest that you broaden your understanding of what the word "liberal" means beyond the narrow compass of what Rush Limbaugh means by it. What you said isn't even a very good punch line, let alone an argument.

posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 08:05 PM
well semper I have two things to say. (by the way this may be one of the only times you see me in PTS, I was just wondering where semper was since i havent talked with him in AWHILE). Anyway semper there is a good reason why one supports rich and the other supports poor, because they dont want a middle class. The republicans support the rich, self explainitory. The democrats though, they get the hard part. They have to pretend they support the poor, stay rich, and both parties have to dodge helping the middle class citizen. Now for republicans its pretty straight foward, give back to the rich. For the democrats, give back to the very poor. Thing with giving back to the poor, they know they will never make it far enough to be anything more then poor. But either way...whos carrying the tax burden...well the middle class citizens.

You create all tax cuts for the rich, give the poor all these welfare programs, whos left to support all this...the middle class. The middle class pays for the tax cuts, they pay for those welfare programs, and they pay for everything else under the sun. Why? Because the rich are the rich, so they dont have to pay and the poor are too poor to pay for it anyway. Make the poor dependent, destroy the middle class by doing it? What do you have, you have what led to the french revolution.

now my second token of appriciation to this thread. It is said with one simple quote.
"The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don't have any.
Alice Walker"
I will always vote libertarian regardless of the fact it may be fruitless. They represent my beliefs and believe it or not, alot of peoples beliefs. If you support republicans it must be because your against immoral actions like gay marriage and abortion. If your a democrat it must be because you believe big business is wrong and the government must handle all the responsibilities of helping people and such. If those arent the reasons...your probably a libertarian at heart. As far as Im concerned libertarian takes the good of both parties. Free personal choices (democrats) and free economic choices and decisions (republican). Where the people control pretty much everything and the government does as little as possible. Libertarian is pretty much a new word for foundations of this country.

posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 08:49 AM

So there you are... You should have known I would be in here...

Here is the only thing that shoots holes in what your saying.

Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.

The top wage earners pay almost ALL of the income tax. By a HUGE margin. Even accounting for errors.

Although I do agree with you on your break-down of the political system, I do not feel the Democrats do more than "mouth work" on their support for the "poor."

It is typical of the American public's inability to look beyond their "traditional" stance on politics. ie. The Republicans have sponsored almost every single minority reform bill, yet minorities routinely vote Democrat. The Republican's support for Big Business promotes a healthy economy which helps the poor, yet again, lower income votes Democrat. Scare tactics at work the same as the Social Security issue.


posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 04:41 PM
semper I would like you to think for a moment and reread the link you posted.
When you read it think about this. Say you have 10 people. you have 2 that are super rich, 3 that are middle class and 5 that are below the poverty line. If I said the Top 50 pay a majority of income tax what does that mean? Well that means that you are highly taxing two that can afford it...and one that cant. Just think about it. It says top 50 percent of taxpayers, not just "wealthy people" my dad is smack in the middle of middle class (100,000 a year around here) and you know how much income tax gets taken out? One third of this paycheck (32%) is income tax. I wont say 50 percent dont pay most the income tax, but out of that 50 percent, I would say a large part of the middle class is in there.

posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 04:47 PM

Never looked at the numbers that way.

Let me research that some and get back to you.

Good to talk to you again by the way!!!

(Oh yea, I'm at about the 32% too. IT SUCKS, I hate the IRS)

I'll get back on this..


posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 09:40 PM
I was thinking about it some more. Remember bush gave that tax cut? to the richest 1%. Now let me be on the safe side and lets classify the super rich as 5 or 10 % instead of 1%. you have the next top 40% paying this large amount of income tax. This is knocking everyone down on the 50%, but that top 10% gets a tax cut, so who benefits in the end?

like this. 10 super rich, 20 rich, 20 upper half middle, 20 lower half of middle, 30 poor. what it turns out to now is this. 10 super rich, 10 rich, 10 upper half of middle, 40 lower half of middle, 30 in poor. Now thats after X amount of time. Lets watch and see what happens again though. 50% paying most the tax, with the top 10% getting tax cuts.
10 super rich, 5 rich, 5 upper half of middle, 30 in lower middle class, 50 in poor. now why did poor suddenly get so many? Well if you think about it, as the people move down in class, they simply have less income. The income tax link wasnt basing in income though, it was basing in percent. so if you have 5 guys making 2 billion dollars, a group of 5 guys making a couple mill, a group of 5 guys making 100,000 and a group of 5 making 50,000 but give the billion dollar guys tax cuts what you get over time is this. 5 guys making the mil start to slide down into the lower part of their groups, over time, they start to move down. soon enough everyone in that top 50% excluding the top 10% is moving down. what it does is it moves that 40% down and down until they are at level with the poor. Then you have a two way class society, a rich and a poor, no middle class.

posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 11:59 PM

Now my head is spinning..

Yet the tax cut really helped me as well and I am no where near the "rich" category.

Your numbers make sense, yet it still appears that the majority of the taxes are being paid by the top wage earners. (Total dollars, not percentage)

Or perhaps I needs more sleep....

I'll sit down with your numbers tomorrow my friend.


new topics

top topics


log in