QuoteRepublicans 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 support for tax breaks that benefit corporations and wealthy individuals.
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. Most are in overwhelmingly Democratic states like New York and California.
The richest: New York's 12th Congressional District, which includes Manhattan's Upper East Side, as well as parts of Queens and Brooklyn. Democrat Carolyn Maloney is in her 11th term representing the district.
Per capita income in Maloney's district is $75,479. That's more than $75,000 a year for every man, woman and child. The next highest income district, which runs along the southern California coast, comes in at $61,273. Democrat Henry Waxman is in his 20th term representing the Los Angeles-area district.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GOP_ADVANTAGE_WEALTHIEST_DISTRICTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-10-16-16-56-29
Yeah, I get it.. You're a rube and Christ died on the cross for republicans.. What this should be telling you is that regions as a whole do better when democrats represent them. Here in SC it's nearly across the board republican and the state has possibly the worse public school system and the worse infrastructure with crumbling roads and bridges, medicaid almost unheard of and the homeless shelters here are the county jail.. But hey, extreme poverty has its upside where most people can't even vote. They don't have to spend as much getting reelected to office..
I don't respect either party. This place is just such a Democratic Party circlejerk that things like this have to be said.
Right. Now here's the part you don't understand. The Democrat controlled states are also the ones that have more intelligence and upward mobility than the poor states.
All but one of the poorest states are red states.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2383782
You are correlating wealth with greed. Wealth overall for a state is an indication of economic health.
Republicans have voted consistently against programs that enable the poor and middle class. It was because of policies by Reagan and the Bush/Bush presidencies that got us into the financial mess we were into. Clinton was the first president to balance the budget in many years, between the 2 Bush eras. We are financially far healthier after 8 years with Obama than we were when Bush Jr. left office.
Reagan ran us further into debt than any previous president. Bush Jr. added to that with literally trillions spent on Afghanistan and Iraq.
The Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, the Chamber of Commerce and other big funders support the Republicans, not the Democrats. Their effort is to further empower the wealthy and further disable the poor and middle class.
Try looking at the big picture instead of parroting Republican rhetoric.
QuoteReagan ran us further into debt than any previous president. Bush Jr. added to that with literally trillions spent on Afghanistan and Iraq.
You won't see me trumpeting their values here or anywhere else.
QuoteYou are correlating wealth with greed. Wealth overall for a state is an indication of economic health.
I guess Erik Von Kuenelt-Leddihn was right, democracy really is just about making everyone middle class, as opposed to socialism, which is about making everyone poor. If the middle class wasn't so insecure about making sure everyone else was exactly like them then I'd be okay with this.
Quote from: lyeman on October 17, 2014, 11:44:42 AM
I don't respect either party. This place is just such a Democratic Party circlejerk that things like this have to be said.
You've been here for how long and you know this place is a Democratic Party circlejerk?
Just count the anti-Republican/pro-Democrat threads on the front page.
Quote from: lyeman on October 17, 2014, 12:32:13 PM
Just count the anti-Republican/pro-Democrat threads on the front page.
This just in. The Jesus Party isn't terribly popular with atheists. Film at 11.
Quote from: lyeman on October 17, 2014, 12:22:25 PM
You won't see me trumpeting their values here or anywhere else.
I guess Erik Von Kuenelt-Leddihn was right, democracy really is just about making everyone middle class, as opposed to socialism, which is about making everyone poor. If the middle class wasn't so insecure about making sure everyone else was exactly like them then I'd be okay with this.
Wow, talking about missing the point. Per capita wealth is measured across whole numbers of citizens; if the per capita wealth is higher in one state that has the same number of citizens as another state, that is an indicator of a healthier economy. Nobody said shit about making everyone middle class or poor. In a society where you have rich, poor and a middle class, what matters is mobility, i.e. the lack of stagnation.
Republican policies have led to stagnation, shifting wealth to those that are already the wealthiest. Red states are poorer per capita because of removing the capability of poor and middle class to improve themselves economically. Under Republican policies, we have a SMALLER relative number of super wealthy with MORE wealth. The so-called 1% is more accurately 1/2% or less; the super wealthy that fund the Republican party would freeze upward mobility and and create a de facto feudal state of super wealthy and the rest of us being effectively serfs, totally dependent on their policies.
News flash- that is not Democracy. Democracy implies an element of equality wherein people have a say in government. Republican policies of disenfranchising the minorities, elderly and poor by creating voter restrictions serves to further empower the rich and disenfranchise the poor.
Sorry if the words I use are too big for your vocabulary.
I can see this is going to go just swimmingly well....
QuoteRepublican policies of disenfranchising the minorities, elderly and poor by creating voter restrictions serves to further empower the rich and disenfranchise the poor.
You'd have my full support if these people actually voted for something other than "more billions from the government" every so often.
Quote from: aitm on October 17, 2014, 01:17:00 PM
I can see this is going to go just swimmingly well....
:rotflmao:
Normally I avoid this type of shit. And maybe I should now, but fuck it. If anyone here on this forum thinks this country is controlled by the Democrats, Republicans, or anyone in between, then I know a Nigerian prince who needs someone to hold his cash for him, just give me your bank account.
Quote from: lyeman on October 17, 2014, 01:30:42 PM
You'd have my full support if these people actually voted for something other than "more billions from the government" every so often.
(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/25285915.jpg)
At this point it is obvious you are baiting us, which means you are a troll. I won't waste time with you any more.
By "these people" I mean the "bread and circuses" crowd, people who see the government as nothing but a fountain of gifts. And of course you're trying to make this about race like every fucking liberal on the planet, but black people make up "only" 40% of the welfare population, so it's not "just" black people. I also named elderly people whose (obviously futile) attempts to extend their lives through Medicare cost more than a trillion dollars a year. A trillion fucking dollars.
Huh, the minority who are most on welfare just happens to be the minority that happens to be one of the most disaffected minorities in the US. Imagine that. Idiot.
Quote from: lyeman on October 17, 2014, 03:51:01 PM
A trillion fucking dollars.
Yeah, with another trillion fucking dollars this country could start another war somewhere. Or pay for a small part of Bush's war. Or subsidize some oil companies. Yeah--who needs some more fucking old people anyway.
Why is it that 3 percent of the people in this country have the most money and the rest of the people are suppose to be taking all the money from our country? This is just plain stupid to think most of the money is going to the poor and the old. :wall: Solitary
Fuck it.. I'm a proud 47%er. Now had I become rich at an earlier time I could have been a 1%er and instead of sucking on uncle sugar's tit for my whopping $721 per month I could have gotten subsidies of possibly millions to do such things as employ Chinese workers and fire the deadbeat fuckers working 90 hour weeks for $8 an hour..