Are the Democrats the new party of business?

[skyq]

How was it that "income disparity" increased during Obama's watch?

That's an argument. But what do you mean to the facts, I have named?

The rich want the middle class to pay for their guilt about the poor.

But if that is the case, the rich people don't will vote for the Democrats, because they demand higher taxes for the higher incomes.

 

[skyq]

Are the Democrats the new party of business?

No

[/thread]

Why not?

Democrats are socialists, they hate business and they are drowning us in taxes and regulations. And the New York Times speaking for business or Republicans? You have to be joking

I don't think that the New York Times is speaking for business or Republicans. I also think, that the Republicans are the original business party. Nevertheless, I wonder about the fact, that a lot of wealthy people are in favor with the Democrats nowadays. And that's the case by the very wealthy individuals in the Forbes 400 and by the wealthy areas in the U.S. as well, as you can see if you take a look at the counties with the highest average household income.

 

[skyq]

In the past, the Republicans were the party of business, no question. But how about that today?

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/...ocrats-become-favorites-of-the-rich.html?_r=1

It's an interesting article, I think. According to this text, the Democrats are much popular for the members of the Forbes 400, compared to the past.


List of highest-income counties in the United States - Wikipedia

That is also interesting, because if you check the counties, most of them are dominated by the Democrats since 10 years or longer. Especially in the 2016 election, the Democrats won distinctly in these countries.

What do you think about it?

Democrats are the party of crony capitalists, if that's what you mean.

And what kind of capitalists are the Republicans?

 

[skyq]

Notice most all top Dems have their own foundations of which that scratch backing game is the biggest component.

Democrats are for sale, they don't really care where the money comes from. Every 4 years they have to fake being outraged by the 'rich' but they just wink at their donors, they understand the game.

And is that leading to the fact, that the Democrats are the party of business?

No the Democrats are the party of 'get mine'. Their top priority is to get theirs. Who that helps or hurts isn't even a secondary concern.

Look at the Clintons, no better example of 'get mine' than those two. They amassed nearly $2 billion for their foundation and $150 million in personal wealth in exchange for government influence, the only thing of value they had to sell.

That's truly an argument. But what's about the voters of the Democrats? They don't profit from the foundations of the top Democrats.

 

[depotoo]

They do profit from their grants, and other programs they dole out through govt. and promises and fear.

Notice most all top Dems have their own foundations of which that scratch backing game is the biggest component.

Democrats are for sale, they don't really care where the money comes from. Every 4 years they have to fake being outraged by the 'rich' but they just wink at their donors, they understand the game.

And is that leading to the fact, that the Democrats are the party of business?

No the Democrats are the party of 'get mine'. Their top priority is to get theirs. Who that helps or hurts isn't even a secondary concern.

Look at the Clintons, no better example of 'get mine' than those two. They amassed nearly $2 billion for their foundation and $150 million in personal wealth in exchange for government influence, the only thing of value they had to sell.

That's truly an argument. But what's about the voters of the Democrats? They don't profit from the foundations of the top Democrats.

 

[skyq]

They do profit from their grants, and other programs they dole out through govt. and promises and fear.

Notice most all top Dems have their own foundations of which that scratch backing game is the biggest component.

Democrats are for sale, they don't really care where the money comes from. Every 4 years they have to fake being outraged by the 'rich' but they just wink at their donors, they understand the game.

And is that leading to the fact, that the Democrats are the party of business?

No the Democrats are the party of 'get mine'. Their top priority is to get theirs. Who that helps or hurts isn't even a secondary concern.

Look at the Clintons, no better example of 'get mine' than those two. They amassed nearly $2 billion for their foundation and $150 million in personal wealth in exchange for government influence, the only thing of value they had to sell.

That's truly an argument. But what's about the voters of the Democrats? They don't profit from the foundations of the top Democrats.

So, how profit a household, which is earning 200.000$ per year in the private sector, from the programs of the Democrats?

 

[Skull Pilot]

In the past, the Republicans were the party of business, no question. But how about that today?

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/...ocrats-become-favorites-of-the-rich.html?_r=1

It's an interesting article, I think. According to this text, the Democrats are much popular for the members of the Forbes 400, compared to the past.


List of highest-income counties in the United States - Wikipedia

That is also interesting, because if you check the counties, most of them are dominated by the Democrats since 10 years or longer. Especially in the 2016 election, the Democrats won distinctly in these countries.

What do you think about it?

The dems are the globalist party, or in other words the party of the big businesses and unlimited free labor from other countries.

So, do you think the Democrats are the party of business?

no.

Dems are happiest when they slap burdensome and frivolous regulations on businesses

 

[kaz]

Nah, not all, just the ones that won't subscribe to their games.

Are the Democrats the new party of business?

No

[/thread]

Why not?

Democrats are socialists, they hate business and they are drowning us in taxes and regulations. And the New York Times speaking for business or Republicans? You have to be joking

They can say what they want, it's what Democrats all vote for

 

[kaz]

Are the Democrats the new party of business?

No

[/thread]

Why not?

Democrats are socialists, they hate business and they are drowning us in taxes and regulations. And the New York Times speaking for business or Republicans? You have to be joking

I don't think that the New York Times is speaking for business or Republicans. I also think, that the Republicans are the original business party. Nevertheless, I wonder about the fact, that a lot of wealthy people are in favor with the Democrats nowadays. And that's the case by the very wealthy individuals in the Forbes 400 and by the wealthy areas in the U.S. as well, as you can see if you take a look at the counties with the highest average household income.

There are two parties and the wealthy in this country come from a lot of backgrounds. Of course there are going to be lots of both. You don't have to have rich parents in this country to get rich, in fact most of the rich don't.

And the article spun rich, it talked about rich counties, which is not the same as "the wealthy." I've lived in many of the richest counties in the country. Santa Clara, Fairfield, Westchester, Manhattan, Montgomery, Fairfax. Trust me, everyone in the county is not "wealthy"

 

[skyq]

Are the Democrats the new party of business?

No

[/thread]

Why not?

Democrats are socialists, they hate business and they are drowning us in taxes and regulations. And the New York Times speaking for business or Republicans? You have to be joking

I don't think that the New York Times is speaking for business or Republicans. I also think, that the Republicans are the original business party. Nevertheless, I wonder about the fact, that a lot of wealthy people are in favor with the Democrats nowadays. And that's the case by the very wealthy individuals in the Forbes 400 and by the wealthy areas in the U.S. as well, as you can see if you take a look at the counties with the highest average household income.

There are two parties and the wealthy in this country come from a lot of backgrounds. Of course there are going to be lots of both. You don't have to have rich parents in this country to get rich, in fact most of the rich don't.

And the article spun rich, it talked about rich counties, which is not the same as "the wealthy." I've lived in many of the richest counties in the country. Santa Clara, Fairfield, Westchester, Manhattan, Montgomery, Fairfax. Trust me, everyone in the county is not "wealthy"

Sure, not everyone earns millions in this counties. But the people in this counties are much wealthier compared to the average in the U.S., and in some of these counties, the Democrats are outstandingly strong. And so, you can conclude that the Democrats is a party for some wealthy people.

 

[kaz]

No

[/thread]

Why not?

Democrats are socialists, they hate business and they are drowning us in taxes and regulations. And the New York Times speaking for business or Republicans? You have to be joking

I don't think that the New York Times is speaking for business or Republicans. I also think, that the Republicans are the original business party. Nevertheless, I wonder about the fact, that a lot of wealthy people are in favor with the Democrats nowadays. And that's the case by the very wealthy individuals in the Forbes 400 and by the wealthy areas in the U.S. as well, as you can see if you take a look at the counties with the highest average household income.

There are two parties and the wealthy in this country come from a lot of backgrounds. Of course there are going to be lots of both. You don't have to have rich parents in this country to get rich, in fact most of the rich don't.

And the article spun rich, it talked about rich counties, which is not the same as "the wealthy." I've lived in many of the richest counties in the country. Santa Clara, Fairfield, Westchester, Manhattan, Montgomery, Fairfax. Trust me, everyone in the county is not "wealthy"

Sure, not everyone earns millions in this counties. But the people in this counties are much wealthier compared to the average in the U.S., and in some of these counties, the Democrats are outstandingly strong. And so, you can conclude that the Democrats is a party for some wealthy people.

I addressed that in the post you replied to

 

[skyq]

Why not?

Democrats are socialists, they hate business and they are drowning us in taxes and regulations. And the New York Times speaking for business or Republicans? You have to be joking

I don't think that the New York Times is speaking for business or Republicans. I also think, that the Republicans are the original business party. Nevertheless, I wonder about the fact, that a lot of wealthy people are in favor with the Democrats nowadays. And that's the case by the very wealthy individuals in the Forbes 400 and by the wealthy areas in the U.S. as well, as you can see if you take a look at the counties with the highest average household income.

There are two parties and the wealthy in this country come from a lot of backgrounds. Of course there are going to be lots of both. You don't have to have rich parents in this country to get rich, in fact most of the rich don't.

And the article spun rich, it talked about rich counties, which is not the same as "the wealthy." I've lived in many of the richest counties in the country. Santa Clara, Fairfield, Westchester, Manhattan, Montgomery, Fairfax. Trust me, everyone in the county is not "wealthy"

Sure, not everyone earns millions in this counties. But the people in this counties are much wealthier compared to the average in the U.S., and in some of these counties, the Democrats are outstandingly strong. And so, you can conclude that the Democrats is a party for some wealthy people.

I addressed that in the post you replied to

You said, rich and wealthy isn't the same. But why do you think, that there's no correlation between higher incomes and voting for the Democrats in this counties?

 

[skyq]

In the past, the Republicans were the party of business, no question. But how about that today?

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/...ocrats-become-favorites-of-the-rich.html?_r=1

It's an interesting article, I think. According to this text, the Democrats are much popular for the members of the Forbes 400, compared to the past.


List of highest-income counties in the United States - Wikipedia

That is also interesting, because if you check the counties, most of them are dominated by the Democrats since 10 years or longer. Especially in the 2016 election, the Democrats won distinctly in these countries.

What do you think about it?

The dems are the globalist party, or in other words the party of the big businesses and unlimited free labor from other countries.

So, do you think the Democrats are the party of business?

no.

Dems are happiest when they slap burdensome and frivolous regulations on businesses

Yes, Democrats are assuredly in favor with regulation. But it's paradoxical, why a lot of wealthy support them nevertheless.

 

[Skull Pilot]

In the past, the Republicans were the party of business, no question. But how about that today?

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/...ocrats-become-favorites-of-the-rich.html?_r=1

It's an interesting article, I think. According to this text, the Democrats are much popular for the members of the Forbes 400, compared to the past.


List of highest-income counties in the United States - Wikipedia

That is also interesting, because if you check the counties, most of them are dominated by the Democrats since 10 years or longer. Especially in the 2016 election, the Democrats won distinctly in these countries.

What do you think about it?

The dems are the globalist party, or in other words the party of the big businesses and unlimited free labor from other countries.

So, do you think the Democrats are the party of business?

no.

Dems are happiest when they slap burdensome and frivolous regulations on businesses

Yes, Democrats are assuredly in favor with regulation. But it's paradoxical, why a lot of wealthy support them nevertheless.

not all wealthy people run businesses