• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are the Republicans still the party of the rich?

Which party is the party of the Rich?

  • Republicans

    Votes: 11 45.8%
  • Democrats

    Votes: 6 25.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 7 29.2%

  • Total voters
    24

skq

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2015
Messages
102
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/opinion/how-did-the-democrats-become-favorites-of-the-rich.html

According to this, the Democrats became favorites of the rich.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-income_counties_in_the_United_States

Many of the highest-income counties, which are mostly in Maryland or Virginia, overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats during the last Presidential Elections.



But if you take a look on the last exit polls of Presidential Elections, people with a household income over 100,000$ per year voted for the Republican candidate, 55-45% or something like these, even Trump got more support than Clinton.

So, what is your opinion?
 
In Washington the rich own everything.
 
I don't see the number of rich people who vote for a party to be especially meaningful. Look at the policies of the parties and ask if they serve the interests of the rich or are more inclusive of middle class and poor demographics as well and other larger ideas. That's why, when you look at the proposed polices and deregulations of the GOP this year, it's easy to see that Republicans' priorities favor corporatist and rich agendas over larger ideas such as public safety, health, choice, freedom and public services.
 
Last edited:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/opinion/how-did-the-democrats-become-favorites-of-the-rich.html

According to this, the Democrats became favorites of the rich.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-income_counties_in_the_United_States

Many of the highest-income counties, which are mostly in Maryland or Virginia, overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats during the last Presidential Elections.



But if you take a look on the last exit polls of Presidential Elections, people with a household income over 100,000$ per year voted for the Republican candidate, 55-45% or something like these, even Trump got more support than Clinton.

So, what is your opinion?

I don't know about the party of the rich, but they seem to still be the party of, "No!".
 
The idea that republicans are the party of the rich is ridiculous. Both parties cater to the wealthy folks, especially their largest contributors. George Soros alone is worth over $25 billion and he has donated millions of his wealth to liberal-democratic causes.
 
So, what is your opinion?

It just depends heavily on what type of wealthy you are. Wealthy business owners still hate Democrats because they fight for labor and workers at their expense, but you have a working class types particularly around DC, that make a lot of money, but aren't technically business owners. Another aspect of it is that you're looking at household income. One of the things that has been driving a lot of income inequality recently is the number of college graduates that are pairing up. Where in the past a households income was often times driven only by what the husband made, now you have a lot more households where bother the husband and wife are making $70-80k which adds up to a large household income even though neither one as an individual might be rich on their own.

It also depends on how greedy you are. There are a lot more jobs in today's world were highly intelligent people can make excellent money without having to be so cut throat and not really having to work that hard. IT being a big one, but also a lot more medical positions. They are relatively low risk professions that still have high rewards. The result is that many of them aren't so pissy about having to pay taxes.
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/opinion/how-did-the-democrats-become-favorites-of-the-rich.html

According to this, the Democrats became favorites of the rich.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-income_counties_in_the_United_States

Many of the highest-income counties, which are mostly in Maryland or Virginia, overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats during the last Presidential Elections.



But if you take a look on the last exit polls of Presidential Elections, people with a household income over 100,000$ per year voted for the Republican candidate, 55-45% or something like these, even Trump got more support than Clinton.

So, what is your opinion?

I don't think that $100.000 income would be considered "rich".
 
In general the Republocrats are the Corporate-Party for the new aristocracy. There are filthy rich people on both sides of that coin, and big Corp funding them both.
 
I don't see the number of rich people who vote for a party to be especially meaningful. Look at the policies of the parties and ask if they serve the interests of the rich or are more inclusive of middle class and poor demographics as well and other larger ideas. That's why, when you look at the proposed polices and deregulations of the GOP this year, it's easy to see that Republicans' priorities favor corporatist and rich agendas over larger ideas such as public safety, health, choice, freedom and public services.

Maybe it would be better to compare the electoral support the candidates receive. It seems pretty obvious that the truly rich want to supply the poor with enough food and games to keep them content. Even the Romans knew that.
 
In general the Republocrats are the Corporate-Party for the new aristocracy. There are filthy rich people on both sides of that coin, and big Corp funding them both.

You think? Most of the investment bankers and hedge fund guys I know are closer to Democrat. Or take the Kennedy type wealth.
 
Bill Gates - richest man in America supports Democrats

Warren Buffet endorsed Hillary Clinton

Larry Ellison is a Democrat

Christy Walton broke with the rest of her family and supported Democrats

Mike Bloomberg is a Democrat

The other five top richest people in America are Democrats, but do not control as much money as the Democrats. Then you have to consider the Hollywood crowd - the Oprah Winfreys and people like Le Bron James. The richest are, numerically, more likely to vote Democrat.
 
When the democrat contributors waste billions on their futile nominee of 2016 & the republicans spend 1/4 that
amount and still won handily. I say the Democrats are the party the rich but considering the stupid way they spend money it may change soon.
 
I don't see the number of rich people who vote for a party to be especially meaningful. Look at the policies of the parties and ask if they serve the interests of the rich or are more inclusive of middle class and poor demographics as well and other larger ideas. That's why, when you look at the proposed polices and deregulations of the GOP this year, it's easy to see that Republicans' priorities favor corporatist and rich agendas over larger ideas such as public safety, health, choice, freedom and public services.

The left claim to be the party representing the little guy, while they take millions in donations and pac money and let lobbyists wine and dine them. Wall Street had Hillary in their back pockets. This doesn't even get to the fact that liberal policies don't help the poor. Under liberals the rich continue to get richer while the poor continue to get poorer. It's all a talking game to buy votes. Why do you think Bernie was so popular? Because the little guy knows that Democrats don't represent them at all. Meanwhile Bernie is a millionaire, has several homes, and his wife is a big spender and being investigated for bank fraud.
 
The left claim to be the party representing the little guy, while they take millions in donations and pac money and let lobbyists wine and dine them. Wall Street had Hillary in their back pockets. This doesn't even get to the fact that liberal policies don't help the poor. Under liberals the rich continue to get richer while the poor continue to get poorer. It's all a talking game to buy votes. Why do you think Bernie was so popular? Because the little guy knows that Democrats don't represent them at all. Meanwhile Bernie is a millionaire, has several homes, and his wife is a big spender and being investigated for bank fraud.

To add to this, a large share of ultra-rich Hollywood celebs are liberal and support democrats, even giving large donations to their campaigns.

On the other hand, a good share of Trump supporters are based in small towns and rural areas that aren't exactly thriving with economic prosperity. Trump is ultra-wealthy but a large share of his so-called base is the poorer working class. Very ironic.
 
The idea that republicans are the party of the rich is ridiculous. Both parties cater to the wealthy folks, especially their largest contributors. George Soros alone is worth over $25 billion and he has donated millions of his wealth to liberal-democratic causes.

So what tax cuts to the rich have he GOP proposed? FYI the dems are he ONLY ones to want to tax the rich more so I seriously doubt the dems are the party of the rich. You may have rich dems but the dems are not the party of the rich.
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/opinion/how-did-the-democrats-become-favorites-of-the-rich.html

According to this, the Democrats became favorites of the rich.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-income_counties_in_the_United_States

Many of the highest-income counties, which are mostly in Maryland or Virginia, overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats during the last Presidential Elections.



But if you take a look on the last exit polls of Presidential Elections, people with a household income over 100,000$ per year voted for the Republican candidate, 55-45% or something like these, even Trump got more support than Clinton.

So, what is your opinion?

Both.
 
You think? Most of the investment bankers and hedge fund guys I know are closer to Democrat. Or take the Kennedy type wealth.

From what I see with the big banks they fund both parties equally.
 
In general the Republocrats are the Corporate-Party for the new aristocracy. There are filthy rich people on both sides of that coin, and big Corp funding them both.

Not in the last 3 elections.

In the past the CEO, board of directors, and white collar workers supported the republicans while the unions and blue collar workers supported the democrats. When it came to getting government contracts or favorable laws it did not matter which party won because the corporation as a whole actually funded both parties. If a democrat became president then the unions would demand the contract or favorable law and if a republican became president then the white collar would demand the contract or favorable law. Plus they clearly funded both parties which is 90+ % of congress. The only people without leverage in the game are the average American unless you at a member of one of the special interest groups.

Lately the democrats have all but abandoned the unions in favor of cheap labor from south of the border. The only ones still OK naturally are the government workers. I say we need to bring in cheap labor from other countries to start doing our government jobs as well and cut taxes. We can have a bunch of Mexicans build our roads and teach our children for a lot less money. I will vote for that.
 
This has always been the rhetoric but never the actual case. Rat politicians are pretty sure their constituents are stupid enough to buy into it, just as they are pretty sure that their constituents are stupid enough to believe the rat party actually gives a **** about them as more than a voting bloc.
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/opinion/how-did-the-democrats-become-favorites-of-the-rich.html

According to this, the Democrats became favorites of the rich.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-income_counties_in_the_United_States

Many of the highest-income counties, which are mostly in Maryland or Virginia, overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats during the last Presidential Elections.



But if you take a look on the last exit polls of Presidential Elections, people with a household income over 100,000$ per year voted for the Republican candidate, 55-45% or something like these, even Trump got more support than Clinton.

So, what is your opinion?

One thing that always amused is lib-tards whining how rich some republican is as though somehow Hillary Clinton,Dianne Feinstein or Bernie Sanders is dirt poor and works at a McDonalds. Both are the party of the rich. Because if they were the party of the average working American then they wouldn't lick the testicles of illegals to get the votes from those that profit from or aid illegals. Because illegals depress wages by working for substandard wages. If they were the party of the average working American then they wouldn't support work visas that companies use to depress the wages of Americans. If they were the party of the average working American then they wouldn't support outsourcing which ****s good paying American jobs over seas. Just because one party throws a few bread crumbs to the poor in the form of welfare and food stamps does not make them for the average working American.
 
From what I see with the big banks they fund both parties equally.

Companies will often have to do that as they are dependent on political contacts and on legislation as well as treatment. Rich persons, families and holdings are a different category.
 
While more rich people might vote Democrat, Republicans tend to favor far more policies that favor the wealthy than Democrats do.
 
Companies will often have to do that as they are dependent on political contacts and on legislation as well as treatment. Rich persons, families and holdings are a different category.

Like when our government looks the other way when barges dump millions of tons of garbage in the ocean because the companies doing it funded the candidates. Just one example of how what the people want is ignored because the special interest feather the politicians nest. The bankers fund both parties so when they screw up both parties rush to give them our money for their private jets and multimillion dollar bonuses while we lose our jobs and homes.
 
They both are until the Bernie wing displaces the incumbent establishment of the Dem party. The two party system is very much a good cop, bad cop dynamic, with both sides aiming predominantly to benefit the uber rich including at the expense of the working/middle class; the difference is simply a matter of degree and flagrancy.
 
Back
Top Bottom