I have come to the conclusion that the Democrats and the Republicans are two sides of the same coin, and today the Washington Times provided further evidence that this may indeed be the case. We have always been told that the Democrats are the party of the poor, but actually that is no longer true, according to the Washington Times. Here are a few excerpts from the article in question:
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.
Mr. Franc’s study also showed that contrary to the Democrats’ tendency to define Republicans as the party of the rich, “the vast majority of unabashed conservative House members hail from profoundly middle-class districts.”
“The demographic reality is that the Democratic Party is the new ‘party of the rich.’ More and more Democrats represent areas with a high concentration of wealthy households,” he wrote on Nov. 5 in the Financial Times of London, in a preview of his study.
Increasingly, we will see Democrats responding to the economic demands of this particular upper-income constituency,” he 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.
So there you have it. We now have empirical proof that the Democrats’ constituents are just as rich, if not richer, then those who vote for the Republicans.
Be sure to read the actual Washington Times article, as it makes a solid case that the Democrats are acting slowly on at least one major tax issue because they don’t want to upset hedge fund managers who are major financial backers of the Democratic Party.
I am not at all surprised. It only goes to prove at least some of what I have been saying for a number of years.
“We have always been told that the Democrats are the party of the poor, but actually that is no longer true”…..
Art we were told lot of things but only idiots believe what they are told. Intelligent people do their googling so they know that southern democrats a.k.a. Dixiecratas were the KKK. see George C. Wallace. They were publicly lynching blacks up to 1954, yet blacks are voting democrats. (very stupid)
The Mexicans too believe that Spanish language is their native language and most of their culture is native. (how foolish)
Education, education, education.
Tell me what you want to prove and I will get someone to write the “study, survey or poll” to substantiate your position. Come on now. How about looking at the poor sections of the nation and determine how many Republicans represent the poor. Few, if any and if there is a predominance of Reeps representing the poor then it could be said, “they are exploiting these poor people.”
Anon.
Republicans are the representatives of many poorer districts because many of these districts are also less educated and more inclined to believe the lies that are coming from Republican mouths. How do tax breaks for the rich help the majority of the Dust Bowl states? Educated Democrats are stuck with frustration that the Democrats aren’t lying, but rather incapable of carrying out their promises.
And what are those southern Dixiecrats(emphasis on FORMER DEMOCRATS) now? They are now Republicans.
Education, education, education my friend.