Dems are now party of the rich

Dems are now party of the rich (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

cyberdude611 -> Dems are now party of the rich (11/23/2007 9:27:58 AM)
You know how the Democrats like to claim they are the party for the working man? Well an article in the Washington Times reported on a study that shows that is not really true...at least not anymore. The rich and many corporations are now starting to stupport Democrats, meaning soon the Democrat party's loyalties are going to change. You won't see so much in favor of the poor anymore. The rich know what they are doing....make friends with whoever is in the majority and the Democrats are more than happy to accept their money. In a state-by-state, district-by-district comparison of wealth concentrations based on Internal Revenue Service income data, Michael Franc, vice president of government relations at the Heritage Foundation, found that the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions were represented by Democrats. "If you take the wealthiest one-third of the 435 congressional districts, we found that the Democrats represent about 58 percent of those jurisdictions," Mr. Franc said. "Increasingly, we will see Democrats responding to the economic demands of this particular upper-income constituency," Franc said. "What the data suggests is that there will be a natural limit to how far and how much the Democrats can sock it to the rich, because in doing so, it means they will have to sock it to their own constituents," Mr. Franc said. http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071123/NATION/111230087/1002&template=nextpage

farglebargle -> RE: Dems are now party of the rich (11/23/2007 9:39:34 AM)
quote: The rich and many corporations are now starting to stupport Democrats, meaning soon the Democrat party's loyalties are going to change. The phrasing of this, "now starting to support" and "soon the Democrat party's loyalties are going to", shows how out of touch the entire premise is. The Democratic Party has, for quite a long time, been supported by the wealthy and corporations. And their loyalties have always been to those who pay the requisite bribes for access. To suggest that it's a new trend is laughable, and makes me suspect what the author's true agenda might be.

cyberdude611 -> RE: Dems are now party of the rich (11/23/2007 9:51:43 AM)
I just think it's a good example of how bad politics in America has become. Lots of people out there vote for the Demcrats because they are under the belief that Democrats are anti-rich and will support the middle and lower class. My grandfather believed that for 70 years and he voted straight Democrat tickets all his life. But when you actually look at the statistics and the data, it is not true. Democrats are just as likely to support their constituents (even if they are rich) as Republicans. We think there are two parties in America....but there isn't. There is very little difference between Republicans and Democrats.

farglebargle -> RE: Dems are now party of the rich (11/23/2007 9:56:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 I just think it's a good example of how bad politics in America has become. Lots of people out there vote for the Demcrats because they are under the belief that Democrats are anti-rich and will support the middle and lower class. My grandfather believed that for 70 years and he voted straight Democrat tickets all his life. But when you actually look at the statistics and the data, it is not true. Democrats are just as likely to support their constituents (even if they are rich) as Republicans. We think there are two parties in America....but there isn't. There is very little difference between Republicans and Democrats. This was news back in the last century. It's HISTORY now. Written as a Feature, it would be a good topic. Portraying it as a Current Event? They the entire article should be: "Ron Paul and Denis Kucinich. Why are people so enamored with these candidates, and what does their popularity say about the options provided by the Party Bosses?" or "Hilary and Rudy? What's the fucking difference?"

SimplyMichael -> RE: Dems are now party of the rich (11/23/2007 9:59:54 AM)
Washington Times? Really? The rich give to those in power? Really? You only complain when it is the Democrats? Really? You just became aware of any of this? Really?

bipolarber -> RE: Dems are now party of the rich (11/23/2007 10:16:28 AM)
You know, it was that crap about there "not being any real difference between the GOP and the Democratic parties" that got us into this mess for the last 7 years. They talked about how Gore and Bush were essentially the same. Does anyone still think that? If Gore had gotten in, do you think we'd be in Iraq right now? (Afghanistan, yes... but Iraq?) Do you think the top 2% of income earners in America would have gotten the biggest tax cut in history? Do you think that alternative energy research would be getting more than a token funding right now? Do you think Gore would have put a horse breeder in charge of FEMA, and fucked up the response to Katrina the way Bush/Brown did? Do you think, when the Pentagon pushed the lie about yellowcake unranium being bought in Africa, that Gore would have punished the guy who told the truth about it, by outing his wife in the CIA (Thus jeapordizing every covert contact she had, and committing an act of treason in a time of war?) Do you think Gore would OK torture of terror-related suspects? Do you think Gore would have suspended Habeus Corpus? Would Gore have bent the Constitution over a table, so he could wiretap everyone's phone calls? Would the Gore administration give tacit approval to the murder of 17 Iraq civilians by trigger happy Blackwater security forces? On, and on, and on.... No, there ARE major differences between the Democrats, and the neo-cons. This time around, don't believe the liars who say there isn't.

Sanity -> RE: Dems are now party of the rich (11/23/2007 10:24:08 AM)
Because Al Gore is made of pure gold? No, no - platinum. Al Gore would have been angelic, even god-like. He would have handled everything perfectly, and the whole world would be joining hands and singing kumbaya had the re re re re re re re re re recount finally found him to be the "official" winner in Florida in 2000!

cyberdude611 -> RE: Dems are now party of the rich (11/23/2007 10:56:45 AM)
Dont you understand that Al Gore's family fortune was made primarily from dirty oil money? His father was a big friend of one of the world's biggest oil tycoons. Do some research on your own and you will find out that Gore's family was about as crooked as the Bush family. And remember in 1998, it was the Democrats that were demanding regime change in Iraq. Look at the Senate record and read the statements that were made. The things the GOP was saying in 2003 is almost verbatim what the Democrats were saying about Saddam in the late 1990s. In fact did you know Clinton had the Pentagon draw up invasion plans of Iraq in 1997? Some of those plans were used in 2003. There is no difference between the parties. It's all based on your perception.

slaveboyforyou -> RE: Dems are now party of the rich (11/23/2007 11:14:42 AM)
In the early 1990's, Al Gore was at the top of the bandwagon in criticizing Bush Sr. for not removing Saddam for power. There are several written and video statements made by Gore during this time talking about terrorists being allowed sanctuary inside Iraq. Al Gore would have had us in Iraq just as quickly as Bush Jr. did. Clinton and Gore involved us in the Balkan conflict and in Somalia. As a result of the Somalia fiasco, Al Qaida was encouraged to instigate further attacks. We also have the added problems of frequent pirate attacks off the Somali coast because of that entire mess created by the Clinton/Gore administration. The Balkans intervention was solely a idealistic move to stop genocide. But Clinton/Gore didn't bat an eyelid at the slaughter that occurred in Rwanda. I guess people with dark skin didn't deserve the same consideration as Europeans. I am no fan of Bush Jr., but saying that Al Gore would have done things much differently is complete nonsense.

luckydog1 -> RE: Dems are now party of the rich (11/23/2007 11:29:18 AM)
They the entire article should be: "Ron Paul and Denis Kucinich. Why are people so enamored with these candidates, and what does their popularity say about the options provided by the Party Bosses?" Doesn't Paul and Kucinich have a combined support of about 10%?

farglebargle -> RE: Dems are now party of the rich (11/23/2007 11:35:52 AM)
Yes. You have 2 people antagonistic to "The System", who actually have some mind-share, and aren't part of the Loony Party. Considering the entire result is carefully scripted, I see it as an indicator of the real "Grass Roots" dissatisfaction that "The System" needs to toss these people a bone who ISN'T part of the Loony Party. As long as enough people persist in the shared-hallucination that voting can bring about change, there won't be a revolution. That's the important thing. Preserving that BELIEF, while still getting the job done. Someone asked, "Would Gore have invaded Iraq"? Of course not. It's not "In Character", for him to do that. That's why Bush "won". Because under Bush, TPTB can invade and occupy a sovereign nation on manufactured evidence. It's "In Character" for him.

awmslave -> RE: Dems are now party of the rich (11/23/2007 11:58:38 AM)
I say criticism of democrat party elites is justified by the reason they claim to be who they are not (working for the poor and unfortunates). US big business supports only certain candidates though. For example Mrs. H. Clinton is one of their favorites because they believe she will keep party going. Look at the fundraising profile difference: Mrs. Clinton gets her money from large donors, Obama from small private donations. Mrs. Clinton olso gets lot of healthcare lobby money (surprise, surprise!). Not surprisingly now she wants to negotiate a deal with health insuarance companies rather than having state run single payer system. W. Clinton was Wall street corporate democrat. Never in history did top 20 % real income increase more than during W. Clinton presidency. At the same time top bottom income was stagnant. Also, W. Clinton paved the way and started massive outsourcing of US jobs; the trend that is continuing today.

popeye1250 -> RE: Dems are now party of the rich (11/23/2007 1:15:56 PM)
I grew up in an Irish-Catholic,Democratic family in the 1960's in Boston, Mass My father was a firefighter, my mother was a telephone operator a "very" Democratic job! Our neighbors were truckdrivers (teamsters) electricians, carpenters, utility workers etc and all Democrats. The Democrats listened to and catered to the "workingman" in those days. If my parents were alive today they'd never vote for this "Democrat" party! I don't know what this "Democrat" party stands for or supports today. The new governor in Massachusetts, "Democrat" Duval Patrick rejected a Ford Crown Vic as his vehicle for a new Cadillac. Evidently the Ford was good enough for Gov. Mitt Romney but not good enough for Gov. Patrick. Now a local radio host, Howie Carr calls him, "Cadillac Duval." And last week he had about 20 state police cars blocking entrance ramps for him on a couple of highways during the morning rush hour! Bill Gates, the top earning "Democrat" in the country wants "unlimited H1B visas." That'll finish off the "middle class" once and for all! Seems the only "working class" people the "Democrats" support these days are illegal aliens. It is becomming a "Party" for the chosen few who are very rich. They'll be using The People to conduct social experiments on if they get in the wh. Thomas Jefferson was right!

pahunkboy -> RE: Dems are now party of the rich (11/23/2007 1:25:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Because Al Gore is made of pure gold? No, no - platinum. Al Gore would have been angelic, even god-like. He would have handled everything perfectly, and the whole world would be joining hands and singing kumbaya had the re re re re re re re re re recount finally found him to be the "official" winner in Florida in 2000! Catherine Harris cunted the votes.

Owner59 -> RE: Dems are now party of the rich (11/23/2007 3:00:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 Dont you understand that Al Gore's family fortune was made primarily from dirty oil money? His father was a big friend of one of the world's biggest oil tycoons. Do some research on your own and you will find out that Gore's family was about as crooked as the Bush family. And remember in 1998, it was the Democrats that were demanding regime change in Iraq. Look at the Senate record and read the statements that were made. The things the GOP was saying in 2003 is almost verbatim what the Democrats were saying about Saddam in the late 1990s. In fact did you know Clinton had the Pentagon draw up invasion plans of Iraq in 1997? Some of those plans were used in 2003. There is no difference between the parties. It's all based on your perception. Dont you understand that Al Gore's family fortune was made primarily from dirty oil money? His father was a big friend of one of the world's biggest oil tycoons. Do some research on your own and you will find out that Gore's family was about as crooked as the Bush family. Can you show a link or newspaper article showing this? We know about Nazi money and Prescott Bush,we know about Chinese money and Bush Sr,and jr.I don`t think there is anything quite like that in Gore`s family. Can you show that Gore`s family has anything like that in it`s history?

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Dems are now party of the rich (11/23/2007 3:44:07 PM)
" Meanwhile, an international campaign opposing Occidental's plan is also picking up steam. On April 28 about 100 demonstrators turned up at Occidental's annual meeting in Santa Monica and called on the company to halt the project. Activists have also picketed the offices of Fidelity Investments, which owns about 8 percent of Occidental's shares, and criticized Vice President Al Gore, whose family owns at least a quarter of a million dollars' worth of Occidental stock. " http://www.commondreams.org/views/050500-103.htm "Seven months later, I read the Wall Street Journal's account of your family's lucrative inheritance from your father of Occidental Petroleum and Occidental subsidiary stock and your long-standing personal relationship with Occidental directors (9/29/99, editorial page). By then I had experienced several such smacks of political double speak from most actors in the Colombian debate. In Washington, Representative Gilman used the murders of the three American human rights workers as a "wake up call" for the United States to increase military assistance to the Colombian military, despite that military's abysmal human rights record spanning four decades of escalating civil war during which guns held by any side have never proven a viable means toward peaceful resolution (see Washington Post editorial page, May 22, 1999). " http://www.colombiasupport.net/200003/areyes-letter-0310.html " But I digress. The story for today is how Hammer's corrupt, evil career was aided in numerous ways by Vice President Al Gore's Daddy, who was a partner in various Hammer enterprises for more than four decades. As Epstein documents in "Dossier," the elder Gore helped Hammer make connections with a series of U.S. presidents and used his influence to help Hammer's Occidental Petroleum company gain access to foreign political leaders. But, most importantly, it was Gore who helped stop the FBI from pursuing an investigation of the industrialist as a Soviet agent of influence. It seems Al Gore Sr. knew something about "controlling legal authorities" and obstruction of justice himself. Like father, like son. " http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a391d17f80f34.htm "The corporate media has heaped praise on Al Gore following the international rock gig Live Earth. But to ask the U’wa people, from the tropical cloud forests of north-eastern Colombia, what they thought about Gore and Occidental Petroleum (Oxy), the oil company from which his personal fortune is derived, would be to receive a very different opinion. " http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/718/37287 The crooked connections would likely be the business connections that Gore Sr. Had. I am not offering excuse, but does anyone know of large businesses that do not have some crooked dealings? Very few politicians are angelic. Orion

Owner59 -> RE: Dems are now party of the rich (11/23/2007 4:55:38 PM)
The crooked connections would likely be the business connections that Gore Sr. Had. I am not offering excuse, but does anyone know of large businesses that do not have some crooked dealings? I would contend that all of corporate America and all of corporate Europe(and now corporate Asia) have been doing business this way since the beginning. The leaders of petroleum producing country "A",gets bribes from oil company "B",and the locals get zero benefit and all the pollution.The leaders of industrial diamond and chromium producing country "A",gets a pass on human rights abuses and repression,from 1st world nations "A",B","and "C",because business and profit, trumps morality/fair play. This is why the 3rd world hates us.It`s not our freedom they hate.It`s international business fucking them in the ass,that`s pissing them off. As for Gore. There`s no evidence that Al Gore have any malfeasance to explain or apologize for.He had no control over what his family did,only what he did. This is tripe that the climate change deniers are repeating. Gore have always been sincere about climate issues.He doesn`t need a pauper`s background, to speak about poverty,doesn`t need to be a carpenter, to speak about working class issues,and doesn`t need to divorce his family in order to speak about alternative energy/climate change/solutions.

Real0ne -> RE: Dems are now party of the rich (11/23/2007 6:00:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bipolarber You know, it was that crap about there "not being any real difference between the GOP and the Democratic parties" that got us into this mess for the last 7 years. They talked about how Gore and Bush were essentially the same. Does anyone still think that? If Gore had gotten in, do you think we'd be in Iraq right now? (Afghanistan, yes... but Iraq?) Do you think, when the Pentagon pushed the lie about yellowcake unranium being bought in Africa, that Gore would have punished the guy who told the truth about it, by outing his wife in the CIA (Thus jeapordizing every covert contact she had, and committing an act of treason in a time of war?) huh? The only reason we didnt go in with clinton is that he could not figure out a way to sell it to the american people. pnac was put on his desk before bebop got in. If you think for one second there is really a difference i will think you are all on some really good sghit and expct you to share it!

SimplyMichael -> RE: Dems are now party of the rich (11/23/2007 6:10:03 PM)
Teddy Roosevelt was rich as fuck and yet he took down all sorts of "rich" bastions, being born to money and being a greedy asshole are not automatic.

DMFParadox -> RE: Dems are now party of the rich (11/23/2007 6:19:54 PM)
Screw 'em all. Vote for Kucinich. (I know he's pretending to be a democrat right now, but still.)

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875