Liberals the party of the super rich

[RDD_1210]

Then read it again but this time slower.

Sense I just read it it again, it still doesn't make since.

Super rich support liberals.

Liberals increase taxes on those making over 200,000.
Small business and entrepreneurs making over 200,000 have to pay higher taxes
making it difficult for the small business to stay in business.

Liberals put in heavy new rules and regulations.
It is expensive for small business and entrepreneurs to implement the new rules and
regulations and stay in business.

Liberal put in Unionized labor which cost more for small business owners and entrepreneurs to stay in business.

Super rich benefit by less competition and therefore become more wealthy.

Sorry, that still makes no cents.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

Not to BLOW A GIANT HOLE in the OP's primary point, but I'm going to BLOW A GIANT HOLE in the OP's primary point.

Vote by Income


Dem Repub Indy
Under $30,000 (17%) 57% 40% 3%
$30-50,000 (19%) 51% 46% 3%
$50-75,000 (21%) 45% 51% 4%
$75-100,000 (15%) 42% 56% 2%
$100-200,000 (19%) 43% 56% 1%
$200,000 or More (8%) 34% 64% 2%

Senate, House, Governor Races - Election Center 2010 - Elections & Politics from CNN.com


Geez...do a TWO MINUTE GOOGLE SEARCH before you come on here and WASTE EVERYONE'S TIME WITH YOUR CLUSMY LIES/IGNORANCE.

Now while it's true that Republicans tend to have higher incomes than Democrats, and while you might think this is because Democrats are pulling from the low and middle income brackets while Republicans are pulling from the higher-income brackets, the discrepancy is actually because Democrats pull from lowest income brackets more than it is Republicans pulling from the highest income brackets.

On the state level, the "richer" states tend to vote Democrat while your "poorer" states tend to vote Republican. Within "poorer" states, "richer" counties tend to vote Republican while "poorer" counties tend to vote Democrat (as is the case in the South), while within "richer" states, both "richer" and "poorer" counties tend to vote Democrat (as is the case along the west coast and northeast). On the personal level, income is generally positive in its association with being a Republican. In other words, your likelihood of being a Republican increases as your income increases; up to a certain point. Of course, your likelihood of being a Republican as your income level increases is highly dependent on what state you live in. A "rich" person in a "poor" state is far more likely to be a Republican than a "rich" person in a "rich" state. In fact, in "rich" states, voters show very little preference based on income. This is most likely due to the fact that people in "richer" states have higher disposable incomes than do people in "poorer" states, and changes in economic policy (i.e., higher taxes) are not likely to have as big an effect on them as it would someone in a "poorer" state who has less disposable income. It's all there. In other words, Democrats tend to inhabit the two polls; either really poor, due to being poor in a "poor" state, or really rich, due to being rich in a "rich" state. Republicans are distributed more between the middle and upper income brackets.

Here's a graph to kind of illustrate the above and shows voter preference based on income. Note that the west coast and northeast remain mostly Democratic strongholds regardless of income.

And, fwiw, using midterm elections is a bad proxy because voter turnout is usually a fraction of what it is in presidential election years.

 

[Decepticon]

Sounds like an awful lot of bullshit to hide the actual numbers.

Perhaps if you were to quantify these effects you describe, it might have some meaning.
Otherwise, it's just an unproven hypothesis.

And you DO realize the maps you linked to, only reinforces my point about the rich voting republican and the poor voting democrat?

 

[Cowman]

Makes since when you really think about it.

You people are really pushing my god damn buttons here with this shit.

 

[sealybobo]

The super rich, through groups like ALEC, write the legislation and hand it over to GOP politicians who then pass it. The GOP works for the corporations. Don't kid yourselves.

The Robber Barons' Party: Let's Bring Tea

Every generation, it is often said, must relearn the lessons of history. This generation is getting a crash course.

Shall we have a government of, by, and for We, the People? Or shall we be governed by a powerful elite made up of the super-rich, multi-national corporations, and well-paid shills who do their bidding?

This is an argument going back to 1762, when Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote "The Social Contract," and directly challenged - for the first time in nearly two thousand years - the idea that people must be governed by a rich ruling class.

The Founders of our nation and Framers of our Constitution embraced Rousseau.

Instead of people being ruled in the kings, popes, or the rich (feudalism/fascism), they set up a form of government wherein the people themselves rule, through elected officials answerable solely to the voters. Not corporations.

Thus, we see, the real battle here is between those who believe that free people can govern themselves - and people who think government is the problem and the rich know best.

Reagan talked about getting big government off our backs. But who was that "us" Reagan spoke of?

Reagan's "us" - as history clearly shows - was the feudal/fascist corporate elite.

As we view today's corporate takeover of our government, We the People are faced with an historic challenge.

Should we be ruled by the rich or should we govern ourselves?

 

[JustSomeGuy]

Sounds like an awful lot of bullshit to hide the actual numbers.

It isn't. Facts and all that.

Perhaps if you were to quantify these effects you describe, it might have some meaning. Otherwise, it's just an unproven hypothesis.

You could always click on the first link provided and read everything there. I just gave you a summary.

And you DO realize the maps you linked to, only reinforces my point about the rich voting republican and the poor voting democrat?

If your point was that there's more of a disparity at the bottom than there is at the top (the poor overwhelmingly vote Democrat but the rich do not overwhelmingly vote Republican), and that whether or not you're "rich" and vote Republican or Democrat is more a function of where you live than it is your income, then sure. But I'm sure that wasn't the point you were making. Again I point out, just for you, that Republicans do have higher incomes than Democrats on average, but that is because Democrats pull a large amount of voters from the lowest income bracket and not because Republicans overwhelmingly garner the votes of the rich.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Both sides are replete with Elites. I fear a USA that mirrors a Euro or Latin American Economy with a few Elite, masses of people content with distributed "fairness" and no voice or opportunity for an upwardly mobile class. With that, I will support the persons whose policies most benefit small business and middle class.

Democrats will scream they are for the middle class but are they for small business? The new tax plans and regulatory policies are not in favor among small business owners and stakeholders.