Forums | MacLife
You are not logged in.
#1 2009-09-14 12:21 pm
The party of the rich
Just saw a list of the wealthiest politicians on Capitol Hill on TV.
Four of them are Democrats.
Nothing wrong with that, but I think it is safe to say that calling the Republican party the Party of the Rich is not exactly accurate.
In the wind, we hear their laughter
In the rain, we see their tears
Hear their heartbeat
We hear their heartbeat -- U2
Offline
#2 2009-09-14 12:23 pm
- mo' ron
- PS3 4 EVA
- From: NC, USA
- Registered: 2002-10-15
- Posts: 14454
Re: The party of the rich
So it's not policies that define who a party benefits more, it's how much money people in that party make?
That's fine logic, if I do say so myself.
What is the difference between Vista and OSX?
- Microsoft employees are excited about OSX.
Offline
#3 2009-09-14 12:23 pm
- Chickenhawk
- Snark Snark Snark Snark
- From: Being Snarky
- Registered: 2005-06-01
- Posts: 6086
Re: The party of the rich
I wish I could understand your thought processes.
The recent medical controversy over whether vaccinations cause autism reveals a habit of human cognition—thinking anecdotally comes naturally, whereas thinking scientifically does not. -- Michael Shermer
Offline
#4 2009-09-14 12:24 pm
- JakeTheTall
- Cargo Cultist
- From: In Permanent Opposition
- Registered: 2003-03-13
- Posts: 10121
Re: The party of the rich
Wow.
Jesus said to the servants, "Fill the jars with water"; so they filled them to the brim. Then he told them, "Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet." They did so, and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew.
Offline
#5 2009-09-14 12:26 pm
- bratboy
- laden with emotion
- Royal Wombat
- From: Austin, Texas
- Registered: 2003-01-19
- Posts: 34207
Re: The party of the rich
"One thing we've learned is there's a difference between being disappointed and having madmen in authority."
--Paul Krugman
Online
#6 2009-09-14 12:44 pm
- Freakout Jackson
- Meme-free
- From: ::moderated like a mo-fo::
- Registered: 2001-08-21
- Posts: 6572
Re: The party of the rich
So since David Duke's a republican you can't exactly call republicans the party of racial tolerance.
"The two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a big fat white guy who is threatened by change." - Seth MacFarlane
I couldn't deal with a clone of myself. I would probably kill him inside a week, and tell the police it was justifiable homisuicide, and tell them to sit around and hang out with me for a week to show them why. ~ Dan
Offline
#7 2009-09-14 12:46 pm
- Proost
- Member
- From: chair
- Registered: 2002-12-08
- Posts: 1762
Re: The party of the rich
Obama/Democrats defended/helped the rich guys (saving wallstreet and they still get high bonusses and nobody got fired), what's your point?
In fact those ''very important/rich'' just grew bigger as a result, after the bailout.
Although maybe Obama will try to change things.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= … mwjgnMvqzU
Q; will it face as much opposition as this new healthcare? (if he really will try to change it).
Or when he wanted to close the guantanamo prison and not 1 state wanted 1 prisoner. Maybe Obama wants change but he just CAN'T.
The war still goes on..
Last edited by Proost (2009-09-14 12:58 pm)
Offline
#8 2009-09-14 12:53 pm
Re: The party of the rich
Democrats now control the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions. More than half of the wealthiest households are concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats control both Senate seats.
This new political demography holds true in the House of Representatives, where the leadership of each party hails from different worlds. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic leader of the House of Representatives, represents one of America's wealthiest regions. Her San Francisco district has more than 43,700 high-end households. Fewer than 7,000 households in the western Ohio district of House Republican leader John Boehner enjoy this level of affluence.
http://www.heritage.org/press/commentary/ed110607a.cfm
Seems maybe the Tea Party is the start of the new working stiff's movement.
In the wind, we hear their laughter
In the rain, we see their tears
Hear their heartbeat
We hear their heartbeat -- U2
Offline
#9 2009-09-14 12:56 pm
- bedstuy
- Archimandrite, Eastern Elite
- From: King Cole Bar, St. Regis Hotel
- Registered: 2003-09-20
- Posts: 13881
Offline
#10 2009-09-14 1:04 pm
- Tallgeese
- Homo loquax nonnumquam sapiens
- Registered: 2000-10-17
- Posts: 34891
Re: The party of the rich
I still believe in liberalism today as much as I ever did, but, oh, there was a happy time when I believed in liberals.
Online
#12 2009-09-14 1:12 pm
- DevoDoc
- Vardøger
- From: The East Wing
- Registered: 2003-05-27
- Posts: 2747
Re: The party of the rich
resedit wrote:
Four of them are Democrats.
What's the denominator?
We also know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling. - Henri Poincaré
Offline
#13 2009-09-14 1:16 pm
- sturner
- Royal High Poobah
- Moderator
- From: Carrollton, TX USA
- Registered: 2000-01-31
- Posts: 14584
Re: The party of the rich
You are looking at the wrong indicators. Our Congresspeople and Presidents have usually been from the wealthy. They have traditionally had the luxury of being able to spend their time in politics instead of working for a living.
That is why the pay, until recently was always relatively paltry.
I'm not dead yet.
There are 3 types of people, those who can count and those who can't.
"There are few things graven in stone, excepting your date of death."
Offline
#14 2009-09-14 1:17 pm
- bratboy
- laden with emotion
- Royal Wombat
- From: Austin, Texas
- Registered: 2003-01-19
- Posts: 34207
Re: The party of the rich
From Nate Silver:
Link.
As in previous elections, income predicts Republican vote more strongly in red than in blue states.
"One thing we've learned is there's a difference between being disappointed and having madmen in authority."
--Paul Krugman
Online
#15 2009-09-14 1:27 pm
- ShnickyShnack
- ::: title edited due to Satanic influences :::
- From: Rockin' out
- Registered: 2001-05-25
- Posts: 22237
Re: The party of the rich
resedit wrote:
Just saw a list of the wealthiest politicians on Capitol Hill on TV.
Four of them are Democrats.
Nothing wrong with that, but I think it is safe to say that calling the Republican party the Party of the Rich is not exactly accurate.
By your standards, we can now fairly say the Republican Party is the Party of Whites.
Actually I'm rather pleased that we cleared this up.
Note: please delete this post.
Offline
#16 2009-09-14 1:38 pm
Re: The party of the rich
ShnickyShnack wrote:
resedit wrote:
Just saw a list of the wealthiest politicians on Capitol Hill on TV.
Four of them are Democrats.
Nothing wrong with that, but I think it is safe to say that calling the Republican party the Party of the Rich is not exactly accurate.By your standards, we can now fairly say the Republican Party is the Party of Whites.
No - the majority of white politicians on capitol hill are Democrat right now.
In the wind, we hear their laughter
In the rain, we see their tears
Hear their heartbeat
We hear their heartbeat -- U2
Offline
#17 2009-09-14 1:41 pm
- bratboy
- laden with emotion
- Royal Wombat
- From: Austin, Texas
- Registered: 2003-01-19
- Posts: 34207
Re: The party of the rich
That stands to reason, as the majority of politicians on Capitol Hill are democrats.
"One thing we've learned is there's a difference between being disappointed and having madmen in authority."
--Paul Krugman
Online
#18 2009-09-14 1:42 pm
- Tallgeese
- Homo loquax nonnumquam sapiens
- Registered: 2000-10-17
- Posts: 34891
Re: The party of the rich
And there are all of... zero black Republicans in Congress.
I still believe in liberalism today as much as I ever did, but, oh, there was a happy time when I believed in liberals.
Online
#19 2009-09-14 1:50 pm
Re: The party of the rich
Tallgeese wrote:
And there are all of... zero black Republicans in Congress.
I honestly hadn't noticed.
Looks like they one that retired in 2002.
I knew there weren't any senators because big deal was made about the one black nominee from Chicago.
Seriously, get beyond seeing the color one's skin.
Last edited by resedit (2009-09-14 1:50 pm)
In the wind, we hear their laughter
In the rain, we see their tears
Hear their heartbeat
We hear their heartbeat -- U2
Offline
#20 2009-09-14 1:51 pm
- bratboy
- laden with emotion
- Royal Wombat
- From: Austin, Texas
- Registered: 2003-01-19
- Posts: 34207
Re: The party of the rich
srsly dude
"One thing we've learned is there's a difference between being disappointed and having madmen in authority."
--Paul Krugman
Online
#21 2009-09-14 1:52 pm
- Freakout Jackson
- Meme-free
- From: ::moderated like a mo-fo::
- Registered: 2001-08-21
- Posts: 6572
Re: The party of the rich
resedit wrote:
Tallgeese wrote:
And there are all of... zero black Republicans in Congress.
I honestly hadn't noticed.
Looks like they one that retired in 2002.
I knew there weren't any senators because big deal was made about the one black nominee from Chicago.
Seriously, get beyond seeing the color one's skin.
That's fine when there's more than 1 color. They're conspicuous in their monochrome.
"The two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a big fat white guy who is threatened by change." - Seth MacFarlane
I couldn't deal with a clone of myself. I would probably kill him inside a week, and tell the police it was justifiable homisuicide, and tell them to sit around and hang out with me for a week to show them why. ~ Dan
Offline
#22 2009-09-14 1:54 pm
Re: The party of the rich
Freakout Jackson wrote:
That's fine when there's more than 1 color. They're conspicuous in their monochrome.
When you look solely at the house of representatives, sure.
To pretend there are not high ranking minority republicans in positions of power is just willful ignorance.
In the wind, we hear their laughter
In the rain, we see their tears
Hear their heartbeat
We hear their heartbeat -- U2
Offline
#23 2009-09-14 1:56 pm
- radarman
- Member
- Registered: 2005-02-28
- Posts: 3981
Re: The party of the rich
sturner wrote:
You are looking at the wrong indicators. Our Congresspeople and Presidents have usually been from the wealthy. They have traditionally had the luxury of being able to spend their time in politics instead of working for a living.
That is why the pay, until recently was always relatively paltry.
Congress was never intended to be a full-time job. The idea was always to have people working "day jobs", and participating in the House or Senate on the side. This was true for a while, but unfortunately the job ended up attracting the idle wealthy. After all, working class folks had better things to do.
I believe this is why the Capital was placed in Washington D.C. For a long time, it was a swamp - literally. Large amounts of swampy land had to be cleared and filled to build nearly everything there. Thus, before air conditioning, it was brutally miserable in the city. It was hot, muggy, and filled with mosquitoes. A further inducement to get your business taken care of quickly in the spring and autumn, and then get the hell out. Recesses weren't so much vacations as refuges from the terrible conditions.
Since nobody wanted to actually live *in* the city, you had to live elsewhere - like your own home back in your district. Congressmen just rented rooms for the duration of the sessions. You were forced by conditions to spend a goodly amount of time seeing what your legislative actions wrought.
Thus, we can indirectly blame the problems with our democracy on the advent of air conditioning... 
Online
#24 2009-09-14 2:07 pm
- Tallgeese
- Homo loquax nonnumquam sapiens
- Registered: 2000-10-17
- Posts: 34891
Re: The party of the rich
resedit wrote:
Freakout Jackson wrote:
That's fine when there's more than 1 color. They're conspicuous in their monochrome.
When you look solely at the house of representatives, sure.
To pretend there are not high ranking minority republicans in positions of power is just willful ignorance.
You gotta start looking beyond the color of skin.
I still believe in liberalism today as much as I ever did, but, oh, there was a happy time when I believed in liberals.
Online
#25 2009-09-14 2:14 pm
Re: The party of the rich
Tallgeese wrote:
resedit wrote:
Freakout Jackson wrote:
That's fine when there's more than 1 color. They're conspicuous in their monochrome.
When you look solely at the house of representatives, sure.
To pretend there are not high ranking minority republicans in positions of power is just willful ignorance.You gotta start looking beyond the color of skin.
I do.
In the wind, we hear their laughter
In the rain, we see their tears
Hear their heartbeat
We hear their heartbeat -- U2
Offline
