DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Party of the Rich?

Party of the rich: In Congress, it's the Democrats


WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans are the party of the rich, right? It's a label that has stuck for decades, and you're hearing it again as Democrats complain about GOP opposition to raising the minimum wage and extending unemployment benefits.

But in Congress, the wealthiest among us are more likely to be represented by a Democrat than a Republican. Of the 10 richest House districts, only two have Republican congressmen. Democrats claim the top six, sprinkled along the East and West coasts. Most are in overwhelmingly Democratic states like New York and California.

The richest: New York's 12th Congressional District, which includes Manhattan's Upper East Side, as well as parts of Queens and Brooklyn. Democrat Carolyn Maloney is in her 11th term representing the district.

Per capita income in Maloney's district is $75,479. That's more than $75,000 a year for every man, woman and child. The next highest income district, which runs along the southern California coast, comes in at $61,273. Democrat Henry Waxman is in his 20th term representing the Los Angeles-area district.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district comes in at No. 8.

Across the country, Democratic House districts have an average per capita income of $27,893. That's about $1,000 higher than the average income in Republican districts. The difference is relatively small because Democrats also represent a lot of poor districts, putting the average in the middle.

Democrats say the "party of the rich" label is more about policies than constituents.

During the 2012 presidential election, Republican nominee Mitt Romney declared, "We're not the party of the rich. We're the party of the people who want to get rich."

The famously wealthy Romney also uttered a more famous quote about the 47 percent of Americans who pay no federal income tax.

"My job is not to worry about those people," Romney said in a secretly taped speech at a private fundraiser. "I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

In the election, Romney carried only one income group: people making $100,000 or more, according to exit polls. But when it comes to Congress, the rich districts like their Democrats.

The 10 richest House districts:

___

New York 12

Rep. Carolyn Maloney, Democrat

Per capita income: $75,479

___

California 33

Rep. Henry Waxman, Democrat

Per capita income: $61,273

___

New York 10

Rep. Jerry Nadler, Democrat

Per capita income: $56,138

___

California 18

Rep. Anna Eshoo, Democrat

Per capita income: $ 54,182

___

Connecticut 4

Rep. Jim Himes, Democrat

Per capita income: $50,732

___

Virginia 8

Rep. Jim Moran, Democrat

Per capita income: $50,210

___

New Jersey 7

Rep. Leonard Lance, Republican

Per capita income: $48,556

___

California 12

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Democrat

Per capita income: $48,523

___

New York 3

Rep. Steve Israel, Democrat

Per capita income: $47,991

___

Virginia 10

Rep. Frank Wolf, Republican

Per capita income: $47,281

___

Source: Census Bureau.

http://news.msn.com/us/party-of-the-rich-in-congress-its-the-democrats

The myth of Republicans = fat cats helping the rich, and Democrats = humble folks working to help the poor is one that is alive and well.

The truth is that both parties are made up of and driven towards the interest of the rich.

The only difference is in which rich constituents gets theirs'.

When the numbers are adjusted for actual cost of living the areas denoted, I think the results would be different.

The cost of living in California, New York, Conn. etc. is significantly higher...

That is what you call manipulating the statistics to prove a point.

I thought people had a perception about their constituents, not the politicians themselves.

That's where it gets interesting, as you see both parties getting a great deal of support from people who get creamed by their policies.

Politicians want us to believe that government spending just creates economic growth and opportunity out of thin air.

That's why the biggest threat to our economy is not corporate greed—which is restrained by both law enforcement and market competition—but political greed, which is encouraged and even rewarded by our political system. Thus Americans are told that the only thing that can save us is a $1 trillion government spending "stimulus" bill that the Congressional Budget Office reports will be a long-term detriment to our economy. Meanwhile, the policies hidden behind the price tag make us less free, less competitive, and more dependent on a federal bureaucracy only too eager to control more and more of the economy.

http://spectator.org/articles/41852/political-greed

I didn't know that corporate greed didn't exist! Someone should tell Microsoft and Apple that. Not to mention every other company out there.

Millcreek, you know 40% of Obama's stimulus was tax cuts. Yet you continue to inflate the number and consider it all to be spending.

If you insist that tax cuts are spending, job killers that take your freedom and make us less competitive...

ObamaCare's 7 Tax Hikes On Under $250,000-A-Year Earners
By ruling that ObamaCare is constitutional, the Supreme Court has set in motion a slew of tax hikes. Well, someone has to pay for it. For rich folks, looming big is the 3.8% Medicare surtax on investment income, and the 0.9% Medicare payroll tax hike (from 1.45% to 2.35%). And then there are the tax hikes for everybody else.

Obama’s pledge against any form of tax increase on Americans making less than $250,000 a year “was thrown out the window” when he signed the healthcare law, says John Kartch, communications director with Americans For Tax Reform (founded by anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist).

Here’s a rundown of seven ObamaCare tax hikes that affect the hoi polloi.

No. 1. The Individual Mandate Excise Tax. Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income tax surtax. It goes up each year until 2016 and beyond when a couple would pay a tax of the higher of $1,360 or 2.5% of adjusted gross income.

No. 2. The Over-The-Counter Drugs Trap. Since Jan. 1, 2011, employees with health savings accounts, flexible spending accounts or health reimbursement accounts have no longer been able to use pre-tax funds stashed in these accounts to buy over-the-counter medicines for allergy relief and the like without a doctor’s prescription (there’s an exception for insulin).

No. 3. The Healthcare Flexible Spending Account Cap. Starting Jan. 1, 2013, employees will face a $2,500 cap on the amount of pre-tax salary deferrals they can make into a healthcare flexible spending account. There is no cap under current law. In light of the new cap, employee benefits groups are lobbying for Congress to modify the use-it-or-lose-it rule that means employees forfeit unused funds in their accounts at the end of the plan year.

No. 4. The Medical Itemized Deduction Hurdle. Starting Jan. 1, 2013, taxpayers who face high medical expenses will only be allowed a deduction for expenses to the extent they exceed 10% of adjusted gross income, up from 7.5% now. Taxpayers 65 and older can still use the old 7.5% threshold through 2016. For how to score the medical expense deduction before 2013, click here.

No. 5. The Health Savings Account Withdrawal Penalty. Since Jan. 1, 2011, taxpayers who withdraw money from health savings accounts for non-medical expenses before age 65 face a 20% penalty, up from 10% before.

No. 6. The Indoor Tanning Services Tax. Since July 1, 2010, folks using indoor tanning salons face a new 10% excise tax. This one hasn’t been bringing in as much revenue as anticipated.

No. 7. The Cadillac Health Insurance Plan Tax. Starting in 2018, there will be a new 40% excise tax on taxpayers who are covered by high-cost health insurance plans (with premiums at or above $10,200 for a single or $27,500 for a family). Insurers or employers who are self-insured will pay the tax, but it is expected to trickle down to mean higher costs for consumers.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleaebelin...a-year-earners/

The Indoor Tanning Tax...that explains why Boehner is so outraged with Obama.

Don't know if it would make a difference, but average is a terrible statistic to use when calculating a representative income for an area. Especially for elections when a majority takes all, median would make much more sense. Averages will always be skewed by outliers, and the outliers get much bigger on the rich end.

We could easily reduce the spending by eliminating pork, but that solution is way to non-partisan.

Citizens Against Government Waste outlines seven criteria by which spending can be classified as "pork":
1.Requested by only one chamber of Congress
2.Not specifically authorized
3.Not competitively awarded
4.Not requested by the President
5.Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding
6.Not the subject of Congressional hearings
7.Serves only a local or special interest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_barrel

Corporate greed is absolutely the biggest threat to our economy, although it's not just limited to the companies themselves.

We decided to burn our houses down because it was cold. And now we're about to suffer for it.