Welcome to PatsFans.com

And the party of the rich is....

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Fogbuster, Nov 23, 2007.

  1. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    ... well, you might be surprised. If you have bought into the stereotype of the "rich, fat Republican", you would be wrong.

    According to data from the Internal Revenue Service, it says that the richest congressional districts are the ones dominated by Democrats.


    [size=+3]Study: Democrats party of rich[/size]

    Democrats like to define themselves as the party of poor and middle-income Americans, but a new study says they now represent the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional districts.

    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.

    He also found that more than half of the wealthiest households were concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats hold both Senate seats.

    "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.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071123/NATION/111230087/1002


    //
  2. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    actually, we would be right.... show me a "poor republican" would you?

    regardless, the washington times? the WASHINGTON TIMES?!?

    what this rather silly story is trying to portray is that Dems are rich, Pubs aren't.... their only logic? a vague assessment (58% of the wealthiest 1/3? wow) that a few wealthy districts happen to have Democratic representation now, after the 109th enabled Bush to start WW3, and the American people sent them packing in place of the lesser of evils party... tell us, Moonie-owned Times, what were the numbers back when Hastert and Co. were in place, and granting Bush whatever he wanted?

    again, show me a poor Republican, and then you'll break my 'stereotype'

    this thread is a joke...
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2007
  3. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    So, then, the both of you laugh at the facts. If you have a problem with the facts, take it up with the IRS, who compiled them.

    If you want to see a "poor Republican" you probably won't be able to find one, but you won't find either an ostentatiously over-the-top living hypocrites, like billionaire John Kerry or mega-million trust fund Ted Kennedy or "got rich through my investments" Hillary, either. For the most part. Anyway, go out and get some air, visit a red state for a change. It'll do you good!!

    You guys are desperately shoveling against the tide.


    //
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2007
  4. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    no, i'm taking them up with you, who is trumpeting them and gloating about it as if they represent reality... desperately...

    i can play with numbers too, just like the Wash. Times... i could suggest conservatives are more likely to be sexual deviants because (hypothetically) "figures show" more sexual perverts are arrested in districts where Con men hold senate seats... this is true 57% of the time in states that begin with 'N'... but, well, i wouldn't... because it's not scientific, and it's not indicative of anything, save for a person's bullshYt agenda...

    the overwhelming majority of Con man voters are quite well off... the overwhelming majority of Democratic voters are middle class or worse... it's really very simple, regardless of how some people want to spin the numbers...
  5. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    ... except this is NOT spin. It's taken directly from the IRS records. Dem districts have more wealth than Repub districts do. It's right there in black and white. Don't know how you can call it "spin" when it is documented proof.

    The problem is that in these Dem districts that are overall so rich is that the wealth is highly concentrated in the hands of the few very rich, like the Kerrys, Kennedys, John Edwards, et. al., while the majority of their servants and manual labor workers are just eeking out a living. Repub districts have much more balanced distribution of wealth. So, sure, you won't see many "poor" Repubs because the wealth is more evenly shared.


    //
  6. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    the spin is the interpretation of the numbers.... what you and the author of the Moonie Times story thinks they mean...

    LOL.... wow... you managed to bring up Kerry, Kennedy AND Edwards in supporting your vague argument... how bout a link that supports that curious assessment that Pub districts "more evenly share the wealth"... ROFLMAO

    you know... a "black and white" fact, if you could...
  7. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    Well, what me and the "Moonie Times" say is simply what the IRS report says, so, again, you need to go argue with them. There is NO interpretation of any kind going on here: the Dem districts are RICHER than the Repub districts. End of story.

    As for Kerry, Kennedy, and Edwards being hypocrites on the "share the wealth" issue is not big news. People have been wise to that for ages, if not longer. That's why they vote Republican!! For Bush. TWICE!!!

    :D


    //
  8. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    in other words, "it's true because i feel it... but, no, i don't have a link"
  9. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0



    What more do you need?? The Heritage Foundation study cites IRS records that the "58% of the wealthiest one third of all 435 districts are Democrat".

    What more needs to be said??


    //
  10. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,421
    Likes Received:
    147
    Ratings:
    +302 / 9 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    My opinion (and it's just that, I have no proof) is that most Democrats are of average or below income because they think they'll get stuff and the rich who can afford high taxes and laugh it off. Average to above average wageearners up to the upper middle class but not super rich, I think, tend to be Republican because they want to keep more of the money they earn and can't afford to have it just taken by the government like the real rich can.
  11. mgteich

    mgteich PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    20,454
    Likes Received:
    97
    Ratings:
    +227 / 17 / -2

    Poor Republicans are located in the rural areas and suburbs of the flyby states. You know, the people in the 1/2 of the country between Chicago and the rockies; also the people in the South (outside of Florida).
  12. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    are you even following the exchange we seem to be having? because, clearly, i asked:

    how bout a link that supports that curious assessment that Pub districts "more evenly share the wealth"... ​

    and now you're back to your original premise, as if that was never covered...

    way to keep the crux of your argument mobile... we're accustomed to it...
  13. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0



    No, it's YOU who are *attempting* to move the discussion away from the established fact that Democrats are the REAL fat-cat party -- the party of billionaire John Heinz Kerry, Ted Kennedy, John Edwards, Al "Tobacco Farmer and multiple-SUV owner" Gore, and all the Hollywood "stars". You ran away from the facts (IRS data) by slipping into the old familiar m.o. of "smear the messenger", in this case the "Moonie Times". And, actually, it wasn't even the "Moonie Times" who developed this report; it was the Heritage Foundation. But you undoubtedly have a problem with them, too, as you seem to have with anybody who doesn't jump into lock-step with your tin foil theories.


    //
  14. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,037
    Likes Received:
    112
    Ratings:
    +195 / 7 / -23


    The Heritage Foundation and the Washington Times, two RW ballwashing sites..neither has much credibility in the real world. The Heritage Foundation is a RW think tank and propaganda machine. The Washington Times is owned by the Moonie family.. nuff said. Funny how you propose the credibility of these sites, but use the WAPO and NYT to your advantage.. you need to take your consistency meds.
  15. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0



    I consistently give credit where credit is due. Try it sometime, you'll like it!!

    :singing:


    //
  16. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    actually, you're gettingy our ever-lovin' asz kicked in this thread... to the point where i almost feel bad...

    your corner just screamed: "my gawd... stop the fight... gimmie the towel!"
  17. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,841
    Likes Received:
    150
    Ratings:
    +317 / 4 / -2

    When will you people understand that there is very little difference between Coke and Pepsi? How many members of congress are millionares?

    As for the article, is what it says really that diffucult to believe?

    Democrats like to define themselves as the party of poor and middle-income Americans, but a new study says they now represent the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional districts.

    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.


    Where is more wealth concentrated, in blue states, or red states? I'd like to say places like the north east, and west coast hold more of the countries cash. Those places tend to be blue correct? Also, considering that most people who could, voted ABR (Anyone but Republicans) in the last election. Most pub incumbants lost their seats, making traditionally red seats, blue. The articles position is certainly plausible. Where it's disengenuous, which isn't uncommon in today's world of news, is the portion I bolded. WTF does being for the middle class and the poor have to do with where you are elected? Does being from a rich suburb mean you can't be for the poor? Should democrats not run a candidate in rich places? Should republicans only run where people make money? The 2006 election:

    The shift in the number of wealthier Democratic districts got a significant bounce in the last election.

    "A fair number of these districts are represented by freshmen, a lot of the guys who got elected in 2006," he said.
  18. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,037
    Likes Received:
    112
    Ratings:
    +195 / 7 / -23

    The issue is not the contention, rather the source of the information.. the Washington Times and Heritage Foundation have definite leanings, so they can interpret any set of data any way they want to prove their point.. otoh the whole congress is a rich people's club..
  19. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,841
    Likes Received:
    150
    Ratings:
    +317 / 4 / -2

    You won't get an argument from me over the manipulation of data, and how easy it is to do. However, simply seeing a name of a source, and automatically determining it's inaccurate is illogical. Did you read the article and look to see how they came to their conclusions?

    "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.

    A key measure of each district's wealth was the number of single-filer taxpayers earning more than $100,000 a year and married couples filing jointly who earn more than $200,000 annually, he said.

    But in a broader measurement, the study also showed that of the 167 House districts where the median annual income was higher than the national median of $48,201, a slight majority, 84 districts, were represented by Democrats. Median means that half of all income earners make more than that level and half make less.



    There's the Wash Times excerpt. Let's analyze the data, and logic used to come to their conclusions. The figures are pretty straight forward, and rounded. $100k single filer, $200k, joint. My first point of note would be whether or not such earnings constitute being "rich". I guess that would be a matter of individual opinion. I'd say it's not necessarily "rich" as much as it is middle to upper middle class. Again though, some people might agree to disagree, and where you live might make a difference. So, the next logical question is to determine where they got their earnings data. The benchmark is there own, but the data which you use against that benchmark has to be solid. Well, a quick Google (this is what I mean by inform yourselves people) gave me this:

    Using Internal Revenue Service data, the Heritage Foundation identified two categories of taxpayers - single filers with incomes of more than $100,000 and married filers with incomes of more than $200,000

    Ok, so they used IRS data, but again, they set their own classification so as to what is the level of "rich" or not. There median income is IRS provided, so that "is what it is" so to speak. Now, things to consider, $100k in Oklahoma is different than $100k in Boston, does earning $100k/200k annually constitute being rich, were the figures accurate, and does that data support the articles position? to me the "data" is accurate, but it doesn't make the authors point.
  20. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    The Dems are supposed to be ahead. They won control of the house in the last election. Do the Moonies not know this?

    If 90% of these rich districts were voting for Democrats that would tell you something; but 58% when Dems control 54% of the house seats in general is statistically insignificant.

    the article is crap. Its designed to mis-inform not inform.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>