Is the Republican party truly the party of the rich?

I'm privy, but the Citizens United decision just took away power from individual participants in the democratic process. This favors corporations not to mention the lobbyists and immoral politicians that do their dirty work.By the time the little people on the right realize what's happening it will all be too late.

 

Of course not. It is pretty obvious that that is simply a rumor that gullible and idiotic dumb asses buy.

However, evil rich Democrat leaders dishonestly use that envy factor to their advantage.

 

Then there's that massive profit factor for nominal care aspect, CEO golden parachutes and salaries, and of course, big pharma overseeing it all. Yeah, that's all the poor people's fault that couldn't afford health care. I forgot.

 

The government with its hands in everything will always have a line of people trying to curry favor. You are fighting the symptom not the disease.

- - - Updated - - -

No, that is the democrats. None in charge are anywhere near poor.

 

As long as you bother them and dont put the little $250,000~$500.000 a year small bussiness owners in the same class its fine with me

 

That is exactly who they come after. Selling your business to retire? The government will need 40% of that and more of Obama got everything he wanted.

 

Oh, that is no victory-dance; it is a call to action.

Please, don't misunderstand.

- - - Updated - - -

Correct. And it is too bad that the people the wealthy are MISLEADING, will have to act later (and they will), rather than sooner.

 

And corporations that are NOT watched and/or threatened with 'power' (commensurate with the will of the people), become a blight upon ANY society in which they operate.

We KNOW this already; why play around with it?

Damned right!! I WANT a government that essentially gets in the way of people with money, doing only that which they WISH to do. There are surely some negatives in that... but I can readily see such power (of, by and for the people) is absolutely necessary.

We know this (even now), why play around with it?

 

Fix the laws; THAT is the real answer.

We already know this, so why play around with it?

 

Lets start by repealing g then all and starting from scratch again. Can we at least agree on that?

 

My point is though, both parties line the pockets of the CEO's. Who do you think wrote Obamacare? The health insurance companies did.

 

That isn't realistic. Besides, knowing HUMAN beings, a complete or radical overhaul of ALL laws would probably be a massive disaster.

 

Well, I am a white working class voter & I fit in just fine with the Democratic party!
And if you were to follow this last election 2012-The working class period---voted for OBAMA
And as far as the GOP being the party of the rich----Just as Sheldon Adelson ( R)from Nevada---

 

I suppose that depends how you define the working class. In 2012, Obama won by large margins in the brackets under 50k in annual income, and lost by large margins all income brackets over 50k

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president

 

I said white working class. Notice how your post above omits reference to WHITE? Can you prove that the White Working Class voted for Obama in numbers greater than Romney?

 

I have read numerous places that there are more Democrat millionaires than Republican, and that there are more Democrat billionaires than Repub.

If that's true, and the preponderance of quotes say it is, I'd have to say that the Democrat party is the party of the rich.

 

Yes, but so is the Democratic Party.

 

Eh, I'm not a fan of phrases like "prejudiced for/against the rich" in describing the two major parties (either of them) but let's take it as it is and play with these words. As far as I can see, it's not that one party is prejudiced for the rich and the other against. I think this is a common way of viewing it, not because it's an accurate representation, but because such a way of viewing the parties reflects the mentality of the lower classes. Most people in the lower classes see actions in politics as 'for the rich' or 'against the poor' or w/e.

But let's look at the parties. There are obviously exceptions but, speaking for the majorities of each, the Democrats are more likely to support acute special interests. For example, you'll often hear politicians on the left say that the NRA has 5 million members and practically controls Congress (the truth of that is debatable), but the NRA has millions more members than ANY other special interest group in existence. That's actual membership - it represents far more than 5million, just like the ACLU doesn't ONLY represent it's members. The Democrats tend to support acute special interests, like the public teacher's unions, the health insurance companies, gay rights, etc. The Republicans generally don't ever do anything with an acute special interest in mind (again, obviously there are exceptions).

Now take that to taxes - what would you expect, from what is stated above, the parties to do with taxes? You'd expect Democrats to try to favor a few small groups with credits and deductions, while you'd expect the Republicans to try to cut taxes or give a credit to (generally or almost) all. Now consider the Bush tax cuts, which cut taxes by 20% for the top and the bottom. Consider the Bush 'tax refund', which was given across the board (if I remember right, $300 for individuals, $600 for families). And when you do that, obviously, you're the party of the rich guy.

- - - Updated - - -

So which is the party of the working man? Both?

Answer is yes and neither, whether you're asking about working man or rich man. Neither is so clear cut, it doesn't actually fall along economic lines, it falls more commonly along other social lines. people just seem to be wired to think about it a certain way.

 

I am not saying we should fall into anarchy, lets recreate all the laws we have, from a blank slate. PLenty of copy and pasting to do in criminal law, but lets wipe out all the special regulations, and protections and start over again, so we dont have to fight a million battles along the way with a million separate special interest groups.

 

None, at least not in the two party duopoly.

 

True. I'd say the system is a bit...."corrupt", wouldn't you say? My point is blaming folks who need the care and can't afford it isn't what's wrong with this system, as right wingers like to ramble on about.

 

The Homestead Act of 1862 is the reason the average White family has 12 times the net worth of the avg. Black family and 8 times as much when compared to the avg. Latino family. That was welfare exclusive to White folks. That's why many of you are land owners, and that wealth has been passed down thru generations. It was the largest land give away by our government. Then there were another such giveaways during the 1930's -1960's with the Fed. Housing Adm. & Home Loan Program and the Veterans Adm. Home Loan Program. These programs created the middle class here and again excluded 96% of people of color. Aid to Dependent Families was created in 1935 was exclusive to White women for 25 years b4 others gained access. These gov handouts went to White folks, which was preferential treatment. The gov always had people "currying favor" for its help. Trace your history and if you find you have benefited from any of these, then kindly give it back with interest!!! Gday!!!

 

So, give it all back to the native Americans? 400 years of war isnt so easily turned back. You act like that land was easy to survive on back then and we didn't have squatters rights. in any event, black Americans from Africa and the carribean make more then those who were here after a single generation on average. It is the policies of the left that destroyed all poor communities when the war on poverty began from rural white landowners in KY and Appalachia to inner cities like FLint, Detroit, riviera beach, etc..etc... Social mobility came to a halt, and towns began to rot everywhere the democrats were really "helping the poor".