Petition [EN] Pétition [FR] Petición [ES] Petiţie [RO] Ψήφισμα [EL] Petice[CZ] Petition [DE] Petizione [IT] Petycja [PL] Petitie [NL] Petíció [HU] Petição [PT] Namninsamling [SV] Underskriftindsamling [DA] Petícia [SK] Achainí [GA] Peticija [LT] Петиция [RU] Eskaera [EU] Petskribo [EO] Petició [CA] Athchuinge [GD]
Democrats wake up to being the party of the rich (...) the demographic reality is that, in America, the Democratic party is the new "party of the rich". More and more Democrats represent areas with a high concentration of wealthy households. Using Internal Revenue Service data, the Heritage Foundation identified two categories of taxpayers - single filers with incomes of more than $100,000 and married filers with incomes of more than $200,000 - and combined them to discern where the wealthiest Americans live and who represents them. Democrats now control the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions. More than half of the wealthiest households are concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats control both Senate seats. This new political demography holds true in the House of Representatives, where the leadership of each party hails from different worlds. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic leader of the House of Representatives, represents one of America's wealthiest regions. Her San Francisco district has more than 43,700 high-end households. Fewer than 7,000 households in the western Ohio district of House Republican leader John Boehner enjoy this level of affluence. (...) Soon this new political demographic may give traditional purveyors of class warfare the yips. To comply with new budget rules, liberal Democrats on Capitol Hill are readying a tax increase of at least $1,000bn over the next decade. Ms Pelosi says she wants to extract all of this from "the wealthy". When has a party ever championed a policy that would inflict so much pain on its own constituency? At what point will affluent Democrats crack and mount a Blue State tax rebellion? (...) Or will Democratic voters follow a different cinematic lead, that of the fraternity pledge in Animal House? Perhaps they will accept these tax rises as a political and economic hazing and greet each new tax hike with: "Thank you, sir. May I have another?" Michael Franc is vice-president of government relations for the Heritage Foundation
(...) the demographic reality is that, in America, the Democratic party is the new "party of the rich". More and more Democrats represent areas with a high concentration of wealthy households. Using Internal Revenue Service data, the Heritage Foundation identified two categories of taxpayers - single filers with incomes of more than $100,000 and married filers with incomes of more than $200,000 - and combined them to discern where the wealthiest Americans live and who represents them.
Democrats now control the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions. More than half of the wealthiest households are concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats control both Senate seats.
This new political demography holds true in the House of Representatives, where the leadership of each party hails from different worlds. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic leader of the House of Representatives, represents one of America's wealthiest regions. Her San Francisco district has more than 43,700 high-end households. Fewer than 7,000 households in the western Ohio district of House Republican leader John Boehner enjoy this level of affluence.
(...)
Soon this new political demographic may give traditional purveyors of class warfare the yips. To comply with new budget rules, liberal Democrats on Capitol Hill are readying a tax increase of at least $1,000bn over the next decade. Ms Pelosi says she wants to extract all of this from "the wealthy". When has a party ever championed a policy that would inflict so much pain on its own constituency? At what point will affluent Democrats crack and mount a Blue State tax rebellion?
Or will Democratic voters follow a different cinematic lead, that of the fraternity pledge in Animal House? Perhaps they will accept these tax rises as a political and economic hazing and greet each new tax hike with: "Thank you, sir. May I have another?"
Michael Franc is vice-president of government relations for the Heritage Foundation
Of course, the argument is incredibly weak (that they are more wealthy citizens in a district says nothing about how either the wealthy or the poor vote; that there is a correlation does not imply correlation - in fact, one could just as well argue, if one accepts this article's premise, that citizens are richer precisely because they have Democratic leaders that rules wisely and allow their citizens to thrive; it also pre-supposes that wealthy people are completely selfish and motivated only by the short term tax cuts they get), but it is nevertheless interesting that it is made: some people are gettign ready for economic hardship, and will have arguments to bring to the "little guy" that Dems are not on their side, and to try to sow discord amongst the Dems.
We have been warned. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Even better, banking was so tightly regulated that it was literally impossible to go broke in the banking business without breaking the law.
Where the hell did those bankers go? And how did we come to have such a gang of economically insane crooks running our financial institutions?
Finally, how can we ever run an economy that produces the goods we really need (like an environmentally sane public infrastructure) until we get the good bankers back? "Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"
And how did we come to have such a gang of economically insane crooks running our financial institutions?
But can this really have changed the whole culture of banking? "Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"
They were waiting in the wings for the opportunity.
Actually I think it was Nixon who started the process when the US defaulted on its debts in - I think it was - 1972.
The Sheikhs then provided a convenient short sharp shock to make theft and plunder more palatable, under the guise of 'common wisdom.'
The rest is history. (And the parts that aren't yet, soon will be.)
Lots of new financial instruments, lots of new transactions, lots of fees - and, having their hands on the flow of money, the front line bankers were easily able to claim the new gains as directly generated by them, thus "deserving" to grab a nice share of it. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I AM depressed.
Well, I guess it's time for some serious legal remedies. Do you have some suggestions? "Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"
You need to regulate economic activity so that the proper incentives and disincentives are in place to lead to the kinds of economic outcomes you desire. You only deregulate if you don't care about the economic outcome.
Ordoliberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ordoliberalism (also called German neoliberalism) is a school of liberalism emphasizing the need for the state to ensure that the free market produces results close to its theoretical potential (see allocative efficiency). The theory was developed by German economists and legal scholars such as Wilhelm Röpke (who spent the Nazi period in exile in Turkey), Walter Eucken, Franz Böhm and Hans Großmann-Doerth from about 1930-1950; Ordoliberal ideals (with modifications) drove the creation of the post-World War II German social market economy and its attendant Wirtschaftswunder.
Sometime during the deregulation craze of the 80s, my dear old mother--a scarred child of the depression was watch the news. She turned to me and snorted, "Fools! doesn't anyone remember what the economy was like before there were regulation on the banks?"
I have long maintained that the reason regulated economies do better the deregulated ones is that regulations permit the honest businessman to prosper. "Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"
the reason regulated economies do better the deregulated ones is that regulations permit the honest businessman to prosper.
Yes, yes, yes!!! In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
