posted November 24, 2007 12:24 PM            

Party of the Poor...Pleeeeeze, that's embarrassing.

Study: Democrats the party of the rich
By Donald Lambro
November 23, 2007

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.

posted November 26, 2007 12:10 PM            

Bush put a lot of business people in federal prisons...early on in his presidency.

Clinton sat on his sorry corrupt ass all through the decade of greed...with co-president Hillary by his side...and did nothing to stem illegal business practices in the US.

democrats claim to be the party of the poor.
I think that's an accurate statement from democrats who have made more people poor in the US than any party in American history.

LBJ's War on Poverty managed to greatly swell the ranks of the poor in America.

posted November 28, 2007 12:45 PM            

When dimocrats talk about the rich paying their fair share, they conveniently leave out the fact that the richest 1% of all earners pay 40% of all income taxes.

dimocrats also leave out the fact that the top 10% of all earners pay 60% of all income taxes.

Left out of dimocrats statistics is the fact the bottom 50% of all earners pay only 3% of all income taxes.

Something else dimocrats will never tell those who are in the something for nothing crowd...those who are their natural voters, those who wish to become wards of the state...is that when they..dimocrats..talk about taxing corporations they are talking about levying a tax on the poor...and a regressive tax at that.

Everyone who has a bit of business acumen understands that acoustic...because those Evilll corporations must...and will pass their dimocrat inspired tax increases on to consumers in the form of higher prices for their goods and/or services. In fact, all the dimocrat inspired paperwork documentation, regulation and busywork dreamed up by leftist dimocrats cost businesses money to comply with. They must and will pass along the cost of all that too.

You were perhaps the last human on earth to not get this acoustic. No more excuses now.

posted November 28, 2007 04:50 PM            

This is interesting:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf

Poverty going down while Clinton was in office. Poverty on the rise with Bush in office. (The above graph was produced during the Bush years.)

posted November 29, 2007 01:46 PM            

The breakout of who pays how much of the federal income tax load is indisputable...so..change the subject.

The information about the regressive nature of corporation taxes on the poor is also not disputable...so change the subject.

As to why dimocrats would choose to tax themselves...poor democrats don't choose. It's the wealthy dimocrats in congress who choose to tax them...with hidden regressive corporation taxes they don't see and therefore don't recognize; higher prices for goods and services at the retail level caused by increasing corporation taxes.

The Clinton years:
percentage of all people below the poverty line...US

1993...15.1
1994...14.5
1995...13.8
1996...13.7
1997...13.3
1998...12.7
1999...11.9
2000...11.3

The Bush years...to date
2001...11.7
2002...12.1
2003...12.5
2004...12.7
2005...12.6
2006...12.3

The average percent of US population below the poverty line during the Clinton years was 13.3%.

The average percent of US population below the poverty line during the Bush years..to date is 12.1
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html

posted November 29, 2007 03:23 PM            

quote:

---

I see you decided to change the subject.

---

The subject: democrats, Party of the Rich

Come on now. You wrote the title yourself.

quote:

---

The breakout of who pays how much of the federal income tax load is indisputable...so..change the subject.

---

No. I didn't address it, because that information regardless of it's accuracy means that these rich Democrats are shouldering the burden. You don't have a point to stand on, and rather than point that out to you, I left it alone so you wouldn't be embarrassed.

quote:

---

The average percent of US population below the poverty line during the Clinton years was 13.3%.

The average percent of US population below the poverty line during the Bush years..to date is 12.1

---

That's a nice piece of spin, but anyone can see that Clinton left office with the poverty rate at 11.3%, and it's steadily climbed since Bush has been in office. Your data also shows a decrease in the poverty level every single year Clinton was in office. Contrast that with Bush where poverty has increased every single year.

posted November 30, 2007 01:42 PM            

You are free to go back to what I've said on this thread and attempt to refute anything or everything I've said.

On the otherhand acoustic, you are also free to continue to attempt changing the subject when you cannot address the factual basis of what has been said.

The facts are as stated from the opening post on this thread.

Study: Democrats the party of the rich
By Donald Lambro
November 23, 2007

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...............
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071123/NATION/111230087/1002

posted November 30, 2007 02:37 PM            

dem-0-scats elected to both houses of congress were elected from voting districts with higher income levels than their Republican counterparts.