How Did The Democrats Become The Party Of The Rich?

Forbes ^ | 01/09/2014 | Steven Hayward

[indthkr]

Crony Capitalism bump for later.....

[C. Edmund Wright]

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.

You recall wrong. Part of their message was not that "all rich guys" are job creators, but that many rich guys got that way by creating jobs and wealth for others. They did it poorly, but that was the message in part - the other part was being afraid of Mitt's wealth, which mitigated the first part. But there was never an "all rich guys" meme - and the Medicare when we retire thing????

[sickoflibs]

RE :”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. “

That is what they sounded like, and then that idiot Romney gets caught at a fundraiser telling his rich donor buddies that 47% of Americans are moochers who ‘we dont have to worry about’. That pretty much told voters he was a jerk who acted like he liked them but really despised them.

Then many tried to defend that and support it was if it was a positive.

Many here were sure it was a winning message, and Rush was telling them it was and that Romney would win.

I on the other hand could see how self destructive it was and was sure he would lose.

[sasquatch]

John Kerry might have an idea.
Or Harry Reid. Or Joe Kennedy.

[skinkinthegrass]

"Democrat Party is a criminal enterprise tenuously held together
by the preponderance of ignorance and the threat of violence."nicely put. ;-)

[sickoflibs]

RE :”You recall wrong. Part of their message was not that “all rich guys” are job creators, but that many rich guys got that way by creating jobs and wealth for others. They did it poorly, but that was the message in part - the other part was being afraid of Mitt's wealth, which mitigated the first part. But there was never an “all rich guys” meme - and the Medicare when we retire thing???”

Yes it was. Typical Romney/Ryan interview:
Q :’Can we raise any taxes on those making big $$ ??”
A :”No, they are the job creators’

That was it, all they had.

Q :Would you accept $9 in spending cuts if it included $1 in tax increases for ever $9 in spending cuts
A : No, tax increases are always bad. However the deficit will destroy this country and we must make it our priority to cut it.

[IMR 4350]

“CRONY CAPITALISM.”

Nailed it.

No further comment necessary.

Clinton turned the CIA into a spy network for business that supported him.

[pepsi_junkie]

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).

That's an oversimplification. People on Wall Street and Silicon Valley earned theirs. They took risks, started businesses, put in the hours. Once they become super-rich, however, they find that nothing appeals to them more than showing how compassionate they are by keeping their own money but demanding that the government take ours to give to the needy.

[C. Edmund Wright]

Look, you made TWO mistakes there.

First, you equated EARNERS to RICH….NOT THE SAME. You should know that.

Second, you are trying to “define the message of the campaign” with a single answer. You should know better than that also.

[C. Edmund Wright]

It would have been a winning message….but like ALL CONSERVATISM..it has to be repeated and repeated and repeated to sink in. You say it once, take a poll or focus group and freak out, you're acting like Karl Rove and Frank Luntz…..really, you are.

You need this book. PM me and I'll send one to you free (btw, it's SPIKING AGAINT ON AMAZON ELECTION BOOKS)

[sickoflibs]

RE :”First, you equated EARNERS to RICH….NOT THE SAME. You should know that.”

Not me, that was the stupid argument they made.

They get asked about one, and they answer about the other.
All high income earners =job creators

Loser argument

[C. Edmund Wright]

No, read your own post….YOU conflated earners in a post about the rich…..

[sickoflibs]

RE :”It would have been a winning message….but like ALL CONSERVATISM..it has to be repeated and repeated and repeated to sink in.
....
you're acting like Karl Rove and Frank Luntz…..really, you are. “

No, it was a loser message and it was Karl Rove who agreed with them, that it was a winning message.
Establishment Karl Rove agreed 100% with the Ryan/Romney faulty message and was sure it would make them win.

If rich guys=job creators and them making mo $$$ always helps us then it would make sense to pass amnesty ASAP as the Chamber demands. They want amnesty to make more $$$ . Happy days are here again.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

How Did The Democrats Become The Party Of The Rich?

Become? They always were.

Someone needs to read some history.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”No, read your own post….YOU conflated earners in a post about the rich…”

Not me, them here:

Q :’Can we raise any taxes on those making big $$ ??”
A :”No, they are the job creators’

[Mike Darancette]

Can’t wait until the Hollywood types come winging in to DC to speak in front of select committees on the first hand experience of income inequality.

[Jean2]

How true! I once read somewhere a long time ago that the super-wealthy robber barons were the ones who most in favor of the income tax in the first place.

[ilgipper]

So you are for jacking up taxes anyone who makes $200,000 while 50%+ pay nothing?

[sickoflibs]

RE :”So you are for jacking up taxes anyone who makes $200,000 while 50%+ pay nothing”

I said nothing of the kind.

I said I was against jacking up taxes on all income under $200K (which is most of us) just because they couldn't get a tax cut extension passed for all income over $200K (many of which were libs and GOPE), clearly out of spite.

There was zero practical reason for it.

The Bush tax cuts were by law only 10 years so if nothing was passed they all would have gone up.

[Vaduz]

Labor unions + trial lawyers = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$