The older he gets the more his nose looks like W.C. Fields.

If any GOP candidate fails to bring this up in the debates, especially the general election debates, thy don’t deserve to be president.

TwoCents on November 23, 2007 at 9:43 PM

Great analysis. My main beef with the Dhemocrats is that it’s the party of death.

Republicans are the party of the middle class. They want those who are poor to have the opportunities and paths to move up to the middle class, which will grow the Repub party.

Democrats are the party of the rich and poor. They do not want anyone who is poor to move up to middle class and hence become Republicans, so they keep the poor stuck with hand-outs and poverty programs which will keep them poor. They like illegal immigrants, as they appreciate earning anything, even if it is low wages, and the Dems want them to stay poor. The only class change that works for them is poor to rich, skipping the middle class. This is why blue-bloods, actors, musicians and the instant-wealthy are so often Crats – many never learned the value of work that the middle class learned.

This is nothing new.

Inner city welfare culture minorities will still pull the lever for Democrats every time.

It’s like global warming, you see.

Were “the rich” ever as pro-Democrat as they were during the early-’60s heyday of JFK’s “Camelot” administration? Compared to that era, their prestige among the affluent has dropped significantly.

And the GOP’s prestige with “the rich” probably peaked during the Reagan administration.

The reporting on this trend may thus be confusing. This may be a short-term trend than ends soon, or a long-term trend that continues. But each party is free to act to solicit support, and so it’s a moving target.

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.

When they say “a slight majority” are democratic they mean 50.2%, which doesn’t mean anything statistically signifigant, other than, hey, democrat-republican is split about 50-50.

Moreover, seeing which party controls districts where households are making over $48k is not determining the “party of the rich” it’s determining the “party of the not-poor.”

You want to know who the party of the rich is? Who did the top 1% of wealth earners vote for? (I certainly don’t know.) That would answer the question. The paragraphs quoted above do not.

El Guapo on November 23, 2007 at 2:23 PM

Thanks.

Mooseman

Please don’t insult the Three Stooges again.

El Guapo on November 23, 2007 at 2:14 PM

Insult??? Why I oughta…..!

Here’s a little something for ya. It’s not unusual for Democratic State party machines, like New Jersey and this story, to push out the hoi polloi.

An Inconvenient Book, by Glenn Beck is a very interesting read.

El Guapo on November 23, 2007 at 1:58 PM

I’ll have to check that out….

For the identity politics crowd, bad, bad news. Large cities that are controlled by Democrats are filled with two types of voters. Poor urban uneducated zombies that pull the Democrat lever based on, class warfare, raise taxes, increase spending on the poor uneducated zombies, type rhetoric and… the high than average income liberal leaning person that can afford to live in a densely populated city…..Clogeed big cities drive up real estate prices. Dividing the populace into two decidedly different categories.
Theworldisnotenough

Nice analysis. Las Vegas and Manhattan are infamous for that. Outrageous realestate prices for what little you get. Only the rich can afford nice neighborhoods.

Thanks i ws aware of these things. However his death was a LONG time ago. The house was appraised and we were taxed for that inheritance. Then when we sold it because my sister needed the money for her 2 kids and deadbeet husband (who she recently divorced thank God) we were taxed for capitol gains. Two different tax names/definitions, but when you boil it down, it is being taxed on the value of your home/asset, twice.

Please don’t insult the Three Stooges again. Notice how they never went on welfare or totally relied on “bread lines”? All of the episodes involving the economy or job market situation had them working (usually humorously failing, but working nonetheless) or trying to get a job and relying on themselves no matter how poor they were depicted in the show. They kept trying no matter what (which is what capitolism loves and rewards). This is a sharp contrast to today’s liberal way of thinking.

Exit question: On balance, is the Dems’ new bourgeois constituency good news or bad news?

For who? Non-partisan conservatives? Yes for reasons you stated. Democrats start wanting to pass tax hikes and their constituency realizes “Hey! they are talking about me!”

For the identity politics crowd, bad, bad news. Large cities that are controlled by Democrats are filled with two types of voters. Poor urban uneducated zombies that pull the Democrat lever based on, class warfare, raise taxes, increase spending on the poor uneducated zombies, type rhetoric and… the high than average income liberal leaning person that can afford to live in a densely populated city.

What to do? The rhetoric gets the poor uneducated vote, but implementing said rhetoric means raising taxes on the big city liberals. Quite the conundrum.

Is this trend going to continue? Clogeed big cities drive up real estate prices. Dividing the populace into two decidedly different categories. This trend is not only not going to change it is going to speed up. Gentrification is going to be one of the nemesis’ of identity politics. (The other is the attitudes of the Black demgraphic). Cities are filled with homes that are owned by minorites that are going to be eaten up by being willed to people that cannot handle money and have to sell the home, reverse mortgages, and normal developement of depressed properties.

As the gulf between these two types of city dwellers grows something has to give.

Then when I moved, a few months later, I had to pay another estate tax (capitol gains) for the sale of that house. Isn’t that double taxing?

Think you ought to check with your accountant on that one. If you are the bene. of his estate, you should have received “stepped-up” basis for the value of his real estate and bond/stocks. That means, the value of those assets on the day of death determines the value of the estate, for “estate tax” purposes.
The federal estate tax exemption is very high now. If you were hit with fed. estate tax, it must have been quite an estate. (There may be a state estate tax where you live with different levels than the federal gov’t.) Finally, if the home appreciated between the day your Dad died and you sold it, then you would be responsible for paying capital gains tax, albeit at a relatively low 15% I believe.

But what about the democrat party being beholden to a bunch of kooks? I’m sure some of these wealthy people are raving moonbats but not all of them.

liquidflorian

And what about the democrats who seem to have the monopoly on lobbyists and other interest groups related to global warming kooks?

An Inconvenient Book, by Glenn Beck is a very interesting read.

Republican Party is too beholden to a small group of self-appointed social conservative leaders.”

But what about the democrat party being beholden to a bunch of kooks? I’m sure some of these wealthy people are raving moonbats but not all of them.