Quantcast
U.S. & World

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

Comments

Return To Article
  • FatherOfFour WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    March 31, 2014 9:12 a.m.

    No one is suggesting that democrats represent a bunch of poor people. Everyone knows that the deep south and the midwest, some of the poorest areas in America, are solid republican. Everyone knows that the richer areas (New York, California, etc.) are solid democrat. The implication is that the republican party promotes policies catering towards the rich (like tax cuts for billionaires) whereas democrats promote policies for the middle-class (like a higher minimum wage, or increasing teacher pay). It is interesting though, as the author points out, those areas governed by democrats seem to have a much higher standard of living.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    March 31, 2014 9:25 a.m.

    Nothing in the artile about education. Does more money indicate more education? Do the Democrats represent more districts where the constituents have more education? I'd be curious to know which party has more support of the intelluctual base in our country.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    March 31, 2014 9:34 a.m.

    "Republicans are the party of the rich, right?"

    Absolutely not. Republicans belong to the Party that kow tows to the rich, and they are willing to make sacrifices and compel their families to make sacrifices that promote the interests of plutocrats at the expense of everyone else.

    Obviously not all wealthy people are greedy grasping individuals who try to make peons out of American citizens. The Koch brothers and their ilk are opposed by some decent wealthy Americans.

    Fortunately, wealthy Liberals like Bill Gates, the richest man in the world, and Warren Buffet, the second richest man in America, and plenty of public-spirited wealthy individuals who run for public office are NOT Republicans, and they recognize the fact that the highest earners should be taxed much more than they are taxed now.

  • slcdenizen t-ville, UT
    March 31, 2014 10:02 a.m.

    @FT

    A recent Pew poll indicated that less than 6% of scientists identify as Republican. It's not surprising due to the anti-intellectual wing that has steadily gained traction in the party. It was sad to see a worthy candidate like Mr. Romney downplay his stellar academic credentials and emphasize his business prowess in order to relate to the low-information, high-rhetoric conservative base during the last election. As a country, we've seen a steady decline in both overall literacy and STEM graduation rates. We need both parties to acknowledge our failure at preparing for our future and shift the debate toward first respecting, then pursuing higher education.

  • Area 52 Tooele, UT
    March 31, 2014 10:08 a.m.

    Interesting choice of words Father of Four. The Republicans are for wanting less taxes for everyone while the Democrates want the Tax paying citizens to pay more in taxes. So, you really thinkg increasing the minimum wage is really going to help out the worker? So what does a small buisness owner suppose to do to offset the increase in wages? Layoff workers? Hire part-time workers with no benefits? Increase the cost of services for the customer? So, how exactly does increasing the minimum wage going to help long term? Sounds to me the small buisness owner will get hosed again.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    March 31, 2014 10:10 a.m.

    To FT: You don't have to look far. Take an area of the country closely associated with higher education (Boston, Berkley, even Austin) and compare it with another that isn't and the Democrats come out ahead - by a mile or two.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    March 31, 2014 10:15 a.m.

    For an Associated Press report, this sounds suspiciously like commentary.

    Personal wealth is not always an indicator of priorities. FDR and JFK were both born to wealth and privilege. Yet the policies of both as President sought to bring greater parity for the lower income people and those who are struggling.

    “If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich."
    - John F. Kennedy

  • anotherview SLO, CA
    March 31, 2014 10:32 a.m.

    Democratic legislators are advocating to raise taxes on themselves.

    Nine of the ten poorest states are Red states.

    Re:Area52
    "The Republicans are for wanting less taxes for everyone "

    Uh, no.
    Remember the 47% who are characterized by Republicans as mere "takers?"

  • Area 52 Tooele, UT
    March 31, 2014 10:35 a.m.

    Wow, in order to be considered educated or smart you now have to be a Democrat. I guess we will leave it up to all the smart Democrats to get us out of this predicament that the country is in. Oh by the way, didn’t Pres. Obama graduate from an Ivy league school and look how that is turning out. One other thing, Pres. Lincoln was a self-educated person and look how that turned out.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    March 31, 2014 10:50 a.m.

    @FatherofFour
    "Everyone knows that the deep south and the midwest, some of the poorest areas in America, are solid republican."

    I don't think they do know that. All the times it's asserted that Democrats win the vote of the 47% who pay no income taxes, those people don't realize that Romney won 8 out of the 10 states (Obama got New Mexico and Florida) that have the highest state percentages of people not paying income tax so it's not like he isn't getting a sizable chunk of that demographic.

    @FT
    "Do the Democrats represent more districts where the constituents have more education? "

    Yes, at least with the outliers (like most of the northeast).

    @Area 52
    "Oh by the way, didn’t Pres. Obama graduate from an Ivy league school and look how that is turning out. "

    We've gained private sector jobs 50 months in a row.

  • Area 52 Tooele, UT
    March 31, 2014 11:10 a.m.

    @ Schnee

    Your comment is flawed.

    Curious why despite the huge miss in payrolls the unemployment rate tumbled from 7.0% to 6.7%? The reason is because in December the civilian labor force did what it usually does in the New Normal: it dropped from 155.3 million to 154.9 million, which means the labor participation rate just dropped to a fresh 35 year low, hitting levels not seen since 1978, at 62.8% down from 63.0%.

    It's pretty simple, people are still not working. Any administration can "cook the books" and give the media/people any numbers they want.

  • slcdenizen t-ville, UT
    March 31, 2014 11:55 a.m.

    @Area52

    "So, how exactly does increasing the minimum wage going to help long term?"

    Our slow ecomomic recovery has uncovered the unstable structure of our whole system. The proposed wage increases are a short-term fix aimed at alleviating some poverty and reigniting our consumer-fueled economy. The arguments opposing minimum wage increases seem to be more about justice and fairness, rather than prescriptive and economically driven. If we raise the lowest paid workers' wages, they will certainly continue to spend all of their earnings, driving new business opportunities. Regarding your other question, small businesses that have no flexibility for adjusting costs like employee wages have no reason to continue to function. Or they can hire from among the plethora of MBA grads to rethink strategy. But the question I have is: why are the needs of small business owners any more important than those of wage earners. Why can't we debate the issue by referring to both as ecomomic agents and save the selective empathy for church?

  • t702 Las Vegas, NV
    March 31, 2014 12:10 p.m.

    When did a poor person who make minimum wage ever hire another poor person? In the liberals mind, the guy who actually hire and put the poor person to work is to be taken down, economically that makes perfect sense, right?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    March 31, 2014 12:16 p.m.

    Another way to look at things is this way. If the person who is elected to congress reflects the voters within their districts what does that say about the Democrats?

    It shows that they are out of touch with the poor people they claim to help. How well do you think Pelosi actually understands what it is like to be poor?

    To "anotherview" lets look at it this way. Democrats want to give your hard work to the poor. Republicans want to get the poor to work to support themselves. Which do you want?

  • Area 52 Tooele, UT
    March 31, 2014 12:26 p.m.

    @ slcdenizen

    So, you would rather see large corporations come in and take over small companies because they (the large companies) can afford to pay thier employees the proposed minimum wage? That is some sound logic you have. Let's just keep small buisness's from growing and keep it up to the large corporations. What do you think the maain expenses are for small buisness owners or maybe even large ones? Wages are the number one expense!

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    March 31, 2014 1:01 p.m.

    Republicans strayed from their constituents, and they are paying the price. Those true to the people are making a comeback in the party.

    The democrats are as bad or worse. Their nakedness will soon be seen by their masses, although there are those who will not look because of the promise of crumbs, or because they are mesmerized by charismatic figures. But I think there will be many who see that the democrats are in bed with big money, worse than the republicans. The moderates/democrats are coming into the light.

  • slcdenizen t-ville, UT
    March 31, 2014 1:02 p.m.

    @Area 52

    You mean, competition? Lol...

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    March 31, 2014 1:26 p.m.

    Mark B
    Eureka, CA
    To FT: You don't have to look far. Take an area of the country closely associated with higher education (Boston, Berkley, even Austin) and compare it with another that isn't and the Democrats come out ahead - by a mile or two.

    10:10 a.m. March 31, 2014

    ========

    Agreed!

    Seattle --

    MicroSoft, Boeing, Amazon, REI, CostCo, etc.

    Solid Democrat.
    One of the Highest College graduate areas of the Nation.

    Imagine that,
    all those wealthy Democrats wanting [and paying] higher taxes,
    creating wider Social safety-nets,
    Higher paying High-Tech jobs,
    living healthy, organic, tree-hugger life-styles,
    the State giving "the people" the right to choose marijuana,
    and increasing the minimum wage to $15.00 / hour!

    And all with NO State income tax to boot!!

    It's Outrageous!

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    March 31, 2014 1:29 p.m.

    Liberal Democrats have made fools of the American people. Making voters believe others are the cause of the mess they created. Who are the greedy wealthy folks?

    Yep! And we pay for their lavish vacations, and lifestyle without knowing it.

    They're a big contributor of the income gap. They are the ones who put us in a debt of 100,000 for every second of seven years. They are the ones who'll cause the collapse of our dollar.

    Put on your seat belts.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    March 31, 2014 1:42 p.m.

    My observation: There are rich and poor Republicans and Democrats. Poor Republicans tend to be less educated rural or suburban people and poor Democrats tend to be less educated urban people. In my experience, wealthier Republicans tend to be doctors or successful small business owners. Wealthier Democrats tend to be lawyers or executives in larger corporations. On a personal level, most of the Democrats I know are better educated than most of the Republicans I know. (i.e. have graduated from college or have an advanced degree.) Of course there are always exceptions. Regardless, I believe that the policies of the Democratic Party, in general, are more beneficial to the less advantaged and society in general than the policies of the Republican Party. I don't think trickle down economics works (as proven over the past 30 plus years), and I think that lifting the "least of these" in society benefits the entire society.

  • anotherview SLO, CA
    March 31, 2014 1:47 p.m.

    Re:Redshirt
    You falsely characterize Democrats as not being focused on job opportunities for the poor.
    There are many people working harder than you or I ever have, yet barely able to put food on the table.
    And there are many others not yet able to find employment.
    "Trickle-down" has thoroughly been debunked, yet Republicans still cling to the myth.

    There is more and more wealth concentration to those in upper income levels. The problem is, wealthy people don't spend all their income. Our econmy is stronger when a greater majority of people have more disposable income, not just the 1%. There are many hedge fund managers, making hundreds of millions of dollars who employ but a handful of people. Our economy is very imbalanced.

  • wjalden Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 31, 2014 1:52 p.m.

    Show me a list of the 10 poorest congressional districts. Show me a list of the 190 congressional districts with the highest murder rate. I wonder which party represents those districts?

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    March 31, 2014 3:01 p.m.

    @Area 52
    "Any administration can "cook the books" and give the media/people any numbers they want."

    If by cooking the books you mean reporting the unemployment rate the same way it's always been for decades...

    @t702
    "In the liberals mind, the guy who actually hire and put the poor person to work is to be taken down, economically that makes perfect sense, right?"

    In the liberals' mind, the reason people are hired is due to need, consumer demand drives job creation. The rich don't create jobs just because they can, they do it because there's a perceived need. As such, when the poor and middle class have their wealth/income squeezed due to increased wealth inequality, we believe that hinders demand and thus hinders job creation. We think this is highlighted in the data where 1928 and 2007 were our two worst years for wealth inequality (and then 1929 and 2008 didn't go so well economically for the nation). It doesn't have to do with taking anyone down, it involves the idea that a rising tide lifts all ships.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    March 31, 2014 4:02 p.m.

    To "anotherview" really? Then show me where Democrats are doing something that actually promotes job growth, and not dependance on government welfare.

    Facts are that until the 2010 elections cut off Democrat control of congress we were losing thousands of jobs each month.

    We currently have the most people on SNAP benefits.

    Democrats killed the Keyston pipeline that would have brought in some jobs.

    Businessmen view Obama as anti-business.

    Obama has added so many regulations that it has cost the economy billions of dollars.

    The ACA has resulted in employees losing hours.

    When asked why Obama wasn't going to cut capital gains taxes on investments, knowing that it helps build companies and generates more tax revenues, he said that he wants to tax capital gains more.

    Obama blames the rich for problems that the poor has, creating a divide where businessmen don't want to expand.

    So tell us, what have Democrats been doing to build jobs?

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    March 31, 2014 4:18 p.m.

    RedShirt said: So tell us, what have Democrats been doing to build jobs?
    Fighting the republicans to do something....anything besides "making this president a one term president as their "Job #1"

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    March 31, 2014 4:58 p.m.

    To "Happy Valley Heretic" yawn.......you do realize that when Democrats controlled Congress and the Presidency that things were going downhill, and it wasn't until Republican took the House that things stopped sliding.

    So again, waht have they actually done? Even your wisecrack shows that Democrats are doing nothing that helps create jobs.

  • anotherview SLO, CA
    March 31, 2014 7:10 p.m.

    re:RedShirt
    "Facts are that until the 2010 elections cut off Democrat control of congress we were losing thousands of jobs each month."

    Unemployment peaked Oct 2009

    "Facts are that until the 2010 elections cut off Democrat control of congress"

    Is there a piece of legislation Republicans crafted and passed which helped the economy, added jobs?

    On the other hand, Democrats passed and Obama signed the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009.

    "Democrats killed the Keyston pipeline that would have brought in some jobs."
    The Keystone pipeline will create jobs during the 1-2 yr period it is being built but ultimately will result in an estimated 35-50 permanent jobs. (fyi the Senate voted and passed a measure supporting Keystone, but a trans-border job requires presidential approval)

    "Obama has added so many regulations that it has cost the economy billions of dollars."

    Between 2009 and 2011, the Obama administration approved an average of 297 regulations per year, comparable to yearly figures for the past 18 years. (In 1992 and 1993, the numbers were much higher, exceeding 1,000 regulations both years.)
    (factcheck)

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 1, 2014 7:54 a.m.

    To "anotherview" so you agree with me.

    Your year is wrong for peak unemployment. That happened in 2010, just as the election cycle started.

    I am glad that you agree that Obama killed the pipeline that would have created some new jobs. I just wonder how many other jobs could have been created by lowering fuel costs, and the cost for other oil products.

    You missed the dollar figure for Obama regulations. Read "Report: Obama Administration Added $9.5 Billion in Red Tape in July" in the US News. Similar articles can be found in Forbes and other business magazines.

    If you go to "25 House-Passed Jobs Bills Stuck in the Democratic-Run Senate" at the House Speaker's web site you can see a summary of jobs bills that Republicans passed, but Demcrats refused to hear in the Senate.

  • anotherview SLO, CA
    April 1, 2014 9:08 a.m.

    Re:Redshirt
    "If you go to "25 House-Passed Jobs Bills Stuck in the Democratic-Run Senate" at the House Speaker's web site you can see a summary of jobs bills that Republicans passed, but Demcrats refused to hear in the Senate."

    Right
    So if they didn't pass any legislation then how did they add jobs?

    What is your source for peak unemployment? Mine comes from Bureau of Labor Statistics, widely cited by economists as the peak.

    Your U.S. News article is merely about a Republican Senator and the Chamber of Commerce voicing their opinion, void of any factchecking it is of little value.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 1, 2014 10:40 a.m.

    To "anotherview" you asked "Is there a piece of legislation Republicans crafted and passed which helped the economy, added jobs? " So, I gave you a list of 25 bills that were passed by the Republicans in the House. Is it their fault that Harry Reid won't let them even be heard?

    I got my data from the BLS. I don't think you did. According to the BLS, the total jobs in the US hit its low point in February 2010.

    Read "Obama has fewer but more costly regulations than Bush" in the CBS News. There they cite a study that shows that Obama's policies as of October 2011 had already cost the US economy $100 billion. In the article "Obama’s regulatory agenda will cost U.S. economy $143B next year: report" in the Washington times, they find that by December 2013 Obama regulations are even more expensive. Those are not opinion pieces, but are reporting on studies done boy 3rd parties.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    April 1, 2014 11:47 a.m.

    @RedShirt1701
    "I got my data from the BLS. I don't think you did"

    If you go to BLS, enter "unemployment rate", click the first result, there will be a graph and table for unemployment rate. "anotherview" is right, the unemployment rate peaked at 10% in Oct, 2009.

    You criticize anotherview "Your year is wrong for peak unemployment. That happened in 2010", he is not wrong, but you are wrong in changing the subject of unemployment to total jobs, these are two different concepts.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 1, 2014 3:07 p.m.

    To "USU-Logan" that is where you are mislead. You need to go to the BLS and look at the total non-farm jobs, seasonally adjusted. There you find that in March 2010 the total jobs hit a low point of 129,811,000. The unemployment rate is a poor measure of employment since it is only concerned with the number of people actively looking for a job. One of the better graphs to look at to understand what is going on in the labor force is the Labor Participation Rate (BLS) There we see that since Obama took office we have gone from a labor participation rate of 65.7% in January 2009 to a low of 62.8% in December 2013. That low of a participation rate hasn't been seen since 1977.

    So again, what have the Democrats been doing to create jobs? All of the data points to Democrats killing jobs and inhibiting job growth.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    April 2, 2014 2:20 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701

    When "anotherview" stated that unemployment rate peaked at Oct. 2009 and provided the BLS source, you repeatedly claimed that statement was wrong. If it was wrong, then you should provide a correct time of highest unemployment rate, not provide a time of lowest total job number, doing so only shows to other people that you lack the understanding of these two different concepts.

    And I fact-checked the claim of “anotherview”, the unemployment rate did peak at Oct. 2009.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    April 2, 2014 3:38 p.m.

    To "USU-Logan" lets use some logic. If the US is continually increasing in population, and the total numer of jobs is decreasing do you have higher or lower unemployment as a result?

    If you go back and read the thread, "anotherview" does not understand the difference between total jobs and unemployment. I was quite clear that total jobs were decreasing into 2010, it was "anotherview" that could not differentiate between total jobs and unemployment.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    April 2, 2014 8:14 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701

    Let me go through the timeline.

    7:10 p.m. anotherview: Unemployment peaked Oct 2009.

    7:54 a.m. Redshirt: Your year is wrong for peak unemployment. That happened in 2010.

    9:08 a.m. anotherview: What is your source for peak unemployment? Mine comes from Bureau of Labor Statistics, widely cited by economists as the peak.

    10:40 a.m. Redshirt1701: I got my data from the BLS. I don't think you did. According to the BLS, the total jobs in the US hit its low point in February 2010.

    Reading these comments, it clearly shows that you thought the peak of unemployment rate and low point of total jobs are the same thing. that is why when anotherview correctly stated Unemployment peaked Oct 2009, you rebutted @ 7:54 am saying that peak unemployment should be in 2010, since you knew total jobs in the US hit its low point in February 2010, unfortunately, that is not what anotherview talked about.

    If I did not point it to you that these are two different concepts, perhaps you still do not realize the difference.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    April 2, 2014 8:20 p.m.

    @t702: "When did a poor person who make minimum wage ever hire another poor person?"

    The richest family in America is the Walton family, owners of WalMart. Their personal wealth is more than the wealth of the bottom 40% of the country.

    Much of their workforce is part-time and much of their full-time workers are paid such a low wage they are on food stamps and other government aid.

    The wealthy are not doing a very good job at creating jobs...

  • Mister J Salt Lake City, UT
    April 2, 2014 8:59 p.m.

    re: Area 52 (1st post) on 3/31

    Isn't W an Ivy Leaguer like Barry? The same Lincoln who suspended Habeus Corpus?

  • GK Willington Salt Lake City, UT
    April 2, 2014 9:14 p.m.

    re Mark B

    "...Take an area of the country closely associated with higher education (Boston, Berkley, even Austin) and compare it with another that isn't and the Democrats come out ahead - by a mile or two."

    Add Seattle (a left leaning town) to Berkely/bay area, ATX, & Boston and what do you get? The places where most of the nations technical innovation occurs.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    April 2, 2014 9:36 p.m.

    Several years ago I was in a discussion with a fairly successful co-worker - district manager for a retail chain, large home, nice cars, collection of motorcycles, large RV and so on. Not wealthy, but in the upper portion of the middle class. And not, by any means, a liberal in most of his social views.

    He said something interesting: "Overall, I tend to do a bit better when Republicans are in office. The problem is, I don't like them and usually can't bring myself to vote for them."

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    April 3, 2014 9:52 a.m.

    To "USU-Logan" yawn......so tell me, would unemployment be higher or lower in March 2010 when there were fewer jobs available?

  • USU_Logan Logan, UT
    April 3, 2014 11:45 a.m.

    @Redshirt

    I prefer to discuss this issue with someone who can differentiate the concepts of total job numbers and unemployment rate.

    Bye.