November 23, 2007
One of Those Two Americas
"Limousine liberalism" may be more accurate than we thought:
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.
"If you take the wealthiest one-third of the 435 congressional districts, we found that the Democrats represent about 58 percent of those jurisdictions," Mr. Franc said.
It isn't by any means bad or wrong that Democrats aspire to wealth and success, but is is a bit hypocritical for them to label themselves the party of the poor as they carefully sip overpriced bistro coffee to keep from spilling it on the leather interior of their late-model European sedans.
I think I read, not too long ago, that Bill Clinton's cabinet consisted of more millionaires than any other cabinet before his.
I've always thought that welfare and its related programs were created to keep the poor at bay - from the gates of the liberal neighborhoods, really.
Most liberals I know are well-off.
Fifty percent of all voters can't be all rich. Liberals pedantically repeat that the Republican party is the party of the rich. I've never believed that for a minute.
Posted by: Mike at November 23, 2007 10:34 AMLiberals pedantically repeat that the Republican party is the party of the rich.
Liberals also intone, in holier-than-thou tones that any televangelist would be hard pressed to match, that tax hikes increase prosperity, that people who break immigration laws are law-abiding citizens, and that we can be safer from foreign attack if we don't respond.
In short, they try to convince a lot of people that black is white.
Posted by: C-C-G at November 23, 2007 10:58 AMSo, are any right-winger going to respond to any of the many take-downs of this "study" or are we just going to sit back and pretend that the Washington Times and the Heritage Foundation are reliable sources of unbiased analysis.
Posted by: AJB at November 24, 2007 01:04 PMWe've known for decades that democrats are the ones that get the large donations and Republicans get much more of the smaller donations. The lies from the left are no longer going unchallenged. Too bad the MSM never exposes those lies.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at November 24, 2007 01:43 PMand pretend that the Washington Times and the Heritage Foundation are reliable sources of unbiased analysis.
You of course are a reliable and unbiased source, right?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 24, 2007 03:03 PMI looked at AJB's two sites (by the way, since when is two "many"?) and it looks from an admittedly cursory examination that it's just more spin. The main point seems to be "just because the wealthiest districts vote Democrat is no reason to think that the people in those districts themselves vote Democrat." This, of course, leaves open the question of who in those districts are voting for Democrats if Democrats keep getting elected. Perhaps the cemeteries are voting?
Posted by: C-C-G at November 24, 2007 04:14 PMAJB - Who is "We" kemosabe? When you find a takedown that isn't composed of snarky grammarian or constuctional observations or cross references to the delusional observations of Paul Krugman. Krugman was good on international trade in the 1970s, but partisanship has blinded him and now he can't find his backside with both hands.
None of the many "takedowns" I have read are actually worthy of that name or comment. Keep looking AJB. We are interested in learning.
Posted by: daleyrocks at November 24, 2007 07:11 PMSounds like, if you are liberal you will get rich.
Posted by: balzar at November 24, 2007 08:23 PMBalzar, you can do it like John Kerry (D-Christmas in Cambodia) did, by marrying two rich wives, or you can do it like Ted Kennedy (D-Chappaquiddick) did, by being born into the right family, or you can do it like Hillary Clinton (D-China) does it, by getting $5,000 donations from people with barely a roof over their head.
Posted by: C-C-G at November 24, 2007 08:49 PMAtherton, Woodside, Portola Valley, Lost Altos Hills, Saratoga, Los Gatos, Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Hillsborough... The whole Peninsula is Democrat controlled.
Posted by: DirtCrashr at November 24, 2007 10:30 PMI don't know anyone who doesn't want to be rich, including myself. But there is some guilt that attaches to rich folks that requires them to then lose their minds and become hopeless lefties, partly to please the limo liberal crowd of which they crave to be part. But I also think one of the drivers is that so many rich, particularly Hollywood and politicians, don't come by it "honestly," meaning they don't do hard work and feel worthy of the spoils.
Americans want wealth but wear it very uncomfortably. It is the remnants of the Puritan ethic in us. How many rich Americans deep in their hearts truly believe they deserve what they have? Precious few, I would imagine. Voila, liberalism is the answer to the guilt.
Posted by: Peg C. at November 25, 2007 04:11 PMMost of the hard-core Liberals I know in this Peninsula nexus are trust-fund babies who've never really had to work hard and instead rely on old, inherited wealth. So Big-Guilt yeh, but also actions without consequences - detached from the nature of making it. They don't know how hard a person has to work to get past the tax-burden and buy that TV or new car, especially living in a welfare environment where even kids in East Palo Alto watch TV on a Plasma screen and have X-Boxes...
Posted by: DirtCrashr at November 26, 2007 07:08 PM
