Democrats are The Party of the Rich

[dsnort]

It seems the Dems aren't exactly the party of the poor and disadvantaged.

For the demographic reality is that, in America, the Democratic party is the new “party of the rich”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0d758a1e-8af8-11dc-95f7-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

[Blue Velvet]

I like my PRSI threads to at least start with an extracted and quoted paragraph or two, with maybe at least a brief sentence by the thread starter.

Put a little effort in and reward the reader. Sort of starts the ball rolling a little better, I think, when people don't have to second-guess the OP's arguments.

Much better than a link to whatever. My 2 cents.

[dsnort]

Good suggestions. I guess I haven't had enough coffee yet.

[Desertrat]

Yeah, more would have been better, but this isn't new.

Dem campaign donations are up, since contributors do the "jump on the bandwagon" thing. The general forecast is for more Democratic wins, and donations bring access. Where the Reps are seen in a losing situation, contributions are down.

In the FWIW department, the Dems have historically had more big-bucks contributors, and the Reps have gotten more money in smaller-amount donations.

'Rat

[FrankBlack]

It certainly does seem that the only Democrats we hear about anymore, are the ones with the huge amounts of money. During the last presidential election, the Boston Herald (tabloid with a rather conservative bent) had a swell time when it was learned that Senator John Kerry likes to dine at very exclusive restaurants on Nantucket, where they don't put prices on the menus. (If you have to ask, you can't afford it. That type of thing)

We hear very little about working class democrats such as representative Stephen Lynch. (9th congressional district of MA) He worked as a union iron worker during the day, and earned a degree in construction management at night school. He then earned a law degree from Boston college. We don't hear about democrats from this side of the tracks much, do we? Are there just not as many of them anymore?

Sort of off-topic: are there any members of the U.S. Senate, from either party, who are not multi-millionaires?

[SMM]

The Democratic Presidential candidate has often been independently well-healed. There is nothing new about that. In fact, it is almost a requirement, for getting someone who can truly make independent decisions. Ask yourself this, "Wouldn't you rather have a wealthy President, who had no need to increase their wealth through government service"?

Many individuals enter government service because they have succeeded in the other areas of their life, and now they want to make a contribution to society. What are they going to do, stuff envelopes for other people's campaigns? Probably not. These are leaders, who want to give to society the many things they learned elsewhere. Regardless of what you think about the man, Ross Perot is a great example. The last thing Perot needed was money and/or power. Yet, he funded his own campaign (twice). He funded his own campaigns because he did not want to be involved with fundraising. He ran for President because he felt the government was being totally mismanaged.

Ironically, he did not run a third time, because he is on the record for saying President Clinton was doing a good job, and the effort should be focused at the local level.

If you look at the list of Democratic contenders, and winners, over the past several decades, you will see see what I am talking about:

FDR
Harry Truman
Adlai Stevenson
John Kennedy
Lyndon Johnson
Hubert Humphrey
George McGovern
Jimmy Carter
Walter Mondale
Michael Dukakis
Bill Clinton
Al Gore
John Kerry

All of these men are wealthy. Those in italics are very wealthy men. I think this is more republican propaganda - trying to hang the failed policies of this administration on them.

[solvs]

I like my PRSI threads to at least start with an extracted and quoted paragraph or two, with maybe at least a brief sentence by the thread starter.
Much better to just post hyperbole in an effort to get those of the other side of your political spectrum to respond. Preferably to put them on the defensive. Maybe even point them out to be hypocrites. That won't happen in this case of course, no one is going to defend the Dems becoming big businesses new darling now that they're in charge, and probably going to gain more. Even says so in the article, that the base is disappointed in them. But par for the course I suppose, and becoming pattern it seems.

I think this is more republican propaganda - trying to hang the failed policies of this administration on them.
Well, most of us are disappointed with the Dems. Liberals and independents. But yeah, it is seemingly one of those quick, "look at them, see, they're no better than us" things. I'm not going to say they're any better, but they certainly aren't worse, and I'd even wager to say aren't any near as bad. At least not yet anyway.

Still, look for some of our more conservative members to come in here and try to say the Dems are, proof notwithstanding.

[mactastic]

Yep Democrats are the party of the rich, and Republicans are the party of the richer.

Surprise surprise.

[njmac]

The Democratic Presidential candidate has often been independently well-healed. There is nothing new about that. In fact, it is almost a requirement, for getting someone who can truly make independent decisions. Ask yourself this, "Wouldn't you rather have a wealthy President, who had no need to increase their wealth through government service"?

Many individuals enter government service because they have succeeded in the other areas of their life, and now they want to make a contribution to society. What are they going to do, stuff envelopes for other people's campaigns? Probably not. These are leaders, who want to give to society the many things they learned elsewhere. Regardless of what you think about the man, Ross Perot is a great example. The last thing Perot needed was money and/or power. Yet, he funded his own campaign (twice). He funded his own campaigns because he did not want to be involved with fundraising. He ran for President because he felt the government was being totally mismanaged.

Ironically, he did not run a third time, because he is on the record for saying President Clinton was doing a good job, and the effort should be focused at the local level.

If you look at the list of Democratic contenders, and winners, over the past several decades, you will see see what I am talking about:

FDR
Harry Truman
Adlai Stevenson
John Kennedy
Lyndon Johnson
Hubert Humphrey
George McGovern
Jimmy Carter
Walter Mondale
Michael Dukakis
Bill Clinton
Al Gore
John Kerry

All of these men are wealthy. Those in italics are very wealthy men. I think this is more republican propaganda - trying to hang the failed policies of this administration on them.


I don't think there is a person out there who wants to increase their wealth through government services. Most CEO's and other executives make many times as much as the president. More often, government services attract people who want power.

Also, you have Bill Clinton in italics to indicate that he is very wealthy but he is only very wealthy now because of his Presidency. Not that he was poor, but he is certainly not in the same $ league as The Bush or Kerry Families. Bill Clinton actually grew up very blue collar and made his money from public service and now from public speaking.

[Desertrat]

An interesting contradiction insofar as Democratic politicians: Sam Rayburn, "Mr. Sam" as a very-long-term Speaker of the House, upon his death left an estate with a net worth of $17,000.

I do raise an eyebrow at Congresscritters who are from a family of immense wealth, but who suggest or suppport laws which make it more difficult for others to achieve that level of wealth. The senior senator from Massachusetts comes to mind.

It's a tad ironic, to me, that Hillary got an $8 million advance for her memoirs, after eight years of claiming, "I don't remember..." :D

Regardless, if you're not well-heeled, or are not a lap-dog for one of the major parties, you're going to have problems with that initial "name recognition'" thing.

'Rat

[mactastic]

An interesting contradiction insofar as Democratic politicians: Sam Rayburn, "Mr. Sam" as a very-long-term Speaker of the House, upon his death left an estate with a net worth of $17,000.

I do raise an eyebrow at Congresscritters who are from a family of immense wealth, but who suggest or suppport laws which make it more difficult for others to achieve that level of wealth. The senior senator from Massachusetts comes to mind.
The POTUS comes to mind as well...

It's a tad ironic, to me, that Hillary got an $8 million advance for her memoirs, after eight years of claiming, "I don't remember..." :D
Hey, if the market will bear it, why gripe about it? No one is forcing you to purchase her book, right?

I wonder how much Rove or Gonzales will get, considering they "remember" much less than Hillary.

Regardless, if you're not well-heeled, or are not a lap-dog for one of the major parties, you're going to have problems with that initial "name recognition'" thing.

'Rat
'Tis true.

[Agathon]

I do raise an eyebrow at Congresscritters who are from a family of immense wealth, but who suggest or suppport laws which make it more difficult for others to achieve that level of wealth. The senior senator from Massachusetts comes to mind.

Why beat up on the Kennedys? That's one rich family that absolutely drummed the public service ethic into its kids. That family has given far more than they ever took.

Would that all the rich were like that.

[solvs]

How do the Kennedys make it harder for people to get rich? Isn't that other political family from New England, currently in power, helping to destroy the middle class? Rich get richer and all? Meanwhile, the other side wants to make it easier for kids to get healthcare and a good education. Oh, but they want to tax people for it. That's right, that $300 tax credit I got from Bush has made me so much better off. Of course, gas and other expenses are so much higher now and the deficit is skyrocketing, but hey, people making 6 digit salaries get lower taxes, so it's a win win.

But yeah, gotta agree with the post above about Dems being rich and the GOPers being richer. One of those parties is currently screwing us. The other is, well... they aren't really helping. But at least they aren't really hurting either.

[it5five]

I guess this is going to be a pretty big talking point. I was listening to NPR, and the chair of the RNC was being interviewed. When asked his very first question, he gave this: "Well, I guess the Democrats are the party of the rich", as his response. Even though it had absolutely nothing to do with the question.