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.
This is a continuing theme that is proven correct again on my blog.
Liberals simply SAY things that the media then relays as fact to the American people.
They SAY they care about the poor and they hate evil corporations, yet they have more millionaires giving to their campaigns than Conservatives.
They SAY they are compassionate, yet every year conservatives give a bigger percentage of their income to charity.
The list can go on and on, liberals SAY whatever they can to get elected...and in this case they continue to use the poor, whom are typically less educated, and lie to them to get their vote.
How is the poverty rate dropped in the last 30 years...hasn't.
Just SAY you care about them, then take rich peoples money and look to them for power.
Hey, it works. Can't blame them for that.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Study: Democrats the party of the rich
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
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.
So Democrats represent 50.3% of districts with median income higher than the national median. And yet, Democrats hold 53.6% of all seats nationally (233 of 435).
That suggests to me that Republicans overperform in districts with median incomes higher than the national average!
Silly New Wingnut Meme: Democrats Are The 'Party Of The Rich'
So 84 of 167 of the wealthier House districts are controlled by Dems. That's a hair over 50% -- supposedly proving that Dems are the new party of the "rich."
But here's what's funny about this. Right now, roughly 54% of all House districts are controlled by Dems. So in reality, the percentage of the wealthier House districts controlled by Dems is actually lower than the percentage of districts Dems control overall. What's more, the households where the median income exceeds the national average are hardly all "rich." So this chief data point just doesn't support the claim.
Another point put forth by the study is this: "If you take the wealthiest one-third of the 435 congressional districts, we found that the Democrats represent about 58 percent of those jurisdictions."
Given that the 58% here is barely higher than the 54% Dems control over all, it's pretty clear that this is statistically insignificant. Indeed, this niggling difference -- combined with the above bogus stat -- again suggests that whatever Dem gains have happened among wealthier districts just reflect overall Dem gains.
Dems may indeed have made the most marginal of gains among generally wealthier districts, due to Dem successes in the suburbs and other stuff. But so what? They gained just about everywhere else, too -- this just means that wealthier Americans, along with everyone else, have figured out that the GOP made a hash of everything and that the Dems are the better choice. And it certainly doesn't have anything to do with the small question of, you know, which party's policies best serve the economic interests of the rich. Pathetically weak stuff.
spin it all you want, Dems are no more a party of the poor than conservatives...we just want them to succeed, you want them to get handouts
Look at all the Democrat millionaires and Billionaires running for office. Why don't they contribute their excess to the US Treasury instead of hiding it from the taxman?
pcd, undoubtedly the richest candidate in the race is Romeny, who's loaned his campaign more than all the other candidates combined. Giuliani got fired from the Iraq Study Group because he blew off meetings to take high-paid speaking gigs. Tommy Thompson bragged about how now that he's out of the public sector he is finally making real money--sitting on boards of directors. Fred Thompson's a TV star.
And so on.
I wasnt talking about the richest candidate, but who they pander to for money. Dem's get more money from the very, very rich.
so what does that really tell you? In what way are the dems pandering to the rich?
if dems are for higher taxes why do the rich support them more than the gop? or do they?
can you really show that? or do the very rich support what dems are historically for?
or are the very rich stupid and being duped by the dems?
Jay and the anonymous,
Let's start with George Soros, TH Heinz-Kerry, The Kennedys, to start with. How about you demanding them all to bring all their money on shore to be taxed as much as you and I are taxed.
Also, Warren Buffet ought to put his money where his mouth is and put it all in the US Treasury as a donation, not buying US Treasuries.
After you get real with these people, next come all the Hollywood Democrats. If they want a Socialist country, TAX THEM INTO GOVERNMENT DEPENDENCY TO SEE IF THEY STILL THINK IT IS A GOOD IDEA!
Post a Comment