Skip to comments.How Did The Democrats Become The Party Of The Rich?
Posted on 01/09/2014 6:38:49 AM PST by SeekAndFind
If you brought back either of the RooseveltsTeddy or Franklinfrom the grave, the most astonishing thing they would find is that the malefactors of great wealth have become the benefactors of todays liberalism, and Democrats have become the party of the rich. In the economic crisis of the 1930s, the rich hated FDR. Most of todays rich love Barack Obamaso much so that Washington D.C. area airports ran out of space to handle all of the private jets flying in the well-heeled for both of his inaugurals. Forget the limousine liberals of the 1960s and 1970s, sending their own kids to private schools while advocating forced busing for everyone else; behold todays burgeoning class of Gulfstream liberals, who jet about the globe while fretting about global warming.
What accounts for this astonishing state of affairs, and what does it mean for our politics in this age of supposed concern over economic inequality?
To be sure, labor unions (along with trial lawyers) still provide the majority of the Democratic Partys campaign funds and organizational muscle on election day, but it is the super rich of Silicon Valley and Wall Street, combined with the super rich of Hollywood, who command the priority attention of Democratic Party leaders these days. Of the ten richest zip codes in the U.S. eight gave more money to Democrats than Republicans in the last two presidential cycles. President Obama doesnt go to union halls to host fundraisers; he goes to posh Wall Street townhomes, the Hollywood hills, or to Tom Steyers house in Pacific Heights.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Democrats seem the party of inherited wealth, while Republicans seem to be the party of earned private-sector wealth (business owners, private sector professionals, etc). Democrats are also infested with people who work for government, have government contracts, get welfare, etc.
The elites are trying to set up a modern day monarchy but with a dictator and a one party... one world order rule.
Assets are not subject to income tax. So for one to propose punitive INCOME taxes after one has acquired great ASSETS is really no sacrifice at all.
Rather they are merely cutting off the rungs of the ladder behind them, cutting off any up and coming competition, and preserving the status quo with themselves at the top.
They always have been the party of the corrupt rich.
How Did The Democrats Become The Party Of The Rich?
They steal from the poor that is why they are the party of the rich..
A lot of wealthy folks envision themselves controlling the population to their benefit. Since they are rich, they must be smart and know what is “right” for us peons. Similar to the “progressive” politicians. They share this view, and work together in a form of “crony capitalism”.
While progressives promote high taxes on “the rich” they allow escape clauses for their allies to retain wealth, and use the govt to route lucrative deals their way.
Bill Gates, Mike Bloomberg, the Google boys, a whole roster of hedge fund titans, etc. The list is long.
In USA 2014, it’s actually an outlier for a wealthy person to be affiliated with conservatism.
The Democrat Party is a criminal enterprise tenuously held together by the preponderance of ignorance and the threat of violence.
Wait a minute...wasn’t FDR a member of “the 1%”?
Fascism has always been a construct of the left.
Look, I hate this debate .if you’re obsessed with saying crony socialism because you cannot figure out that “crony” in “crony capitalism” works like ANTI, NON, FAUX, UN, DIS, IM, IL, IR, A - etc ..then so be it.
Clearly crony capitalism means non capitalism or anti capitalism or acapitalism .but fight your fight.
Crony socialism is okay, but frankly, it’s redundant.
I don’t think this is new. There are plenty of wealthy Democrats. It’s not just poor inner city minorities that vote Democratic. There’s plenty of wealth in the major cities that vote this way too.
College professors, CEO’s, entrepenuers, and entertainment industry types all have plenty of money. And of course, there’s the upper middle class white woman too, who lives in suburbia but tends to be more moderate to liberal.
I’ve always rejected the notion of rich business men = conservative and poor minority = liberal. True, there are many examples of each in those respective parties, but it’s not a given - not in any way.
I recall the popular GOP theme in 2012 (Romney/Ryan leading the charge ) was that all rich guys are job creators and if any of them pay less taxes WE will all benefit from it, and then we wont even need Medicare when we retire.
That led to the 2012 end years tax cut extension standoff where a number of Republicans like Lou Gomert took the stand that if Reid and Obama wouldn't accept extending tax cuts for these billionaires then nothing should pass and all our taxes should automatically go up.
Personally I wasn't interested in paying higher taxes just because they have to.
Clearly this meant that we should only be judged by the $$ we make.
Don’t be too quick to laud Teddy. He was one of the first “Progressives” and an anti constitutionalist. Remember National Parks and Trust Busting.
Both parties are “the parties of the rich” and they work together to preserve their status and wealth. Their enemy is 90% (or so) or the population, who are voting fodder and a commodity that keeps power and wealth flowing to the elite.
Because they are much better at crony capitalist table-tilting than the Pubbies.
That's a pretty skewed view on the message. Not to say their campaign wasn't flawed, but it wasn't that. They correctly identified that taxing the hell out of the successful is not a solution to any of the problems we face. They did not successfully make that case, clearly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.