Why is it.................

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Pete, you're gonna get stripped of your pocket protector.

Regards,

D-ray

Anything but that!!

Originally Posted by merrylander

Yeah Pete, you really need to take off those blue glasses, makes you think everyone is a liberal.

I've got issues with Buchanan caving to the left.

Originally Posted by Boreas

Thanks, I'll see if I can make any sense of this.

I should have said this before but I was just waking up. Simply put, having wealth isn't the same as serving wealth. Nobody could claim that the Kennedys and the Roosevelts ever served the wealthy or ignored the interests of the poor and disenfranchised. Conversely, nobody could honestly deny that Reagan did just that.

John

Nice spin Hedging? Or does being Dem mean you don't look out for what's yours?

Originally Posted by Boreas

Shit! My brain doesn't go that high!

Now I'm amazed for the opposite reasons. I mean, I knew that the Congress was a "millionaires' club" but I had no idea of the extent to which that was true. Alcee Hastings is the "poorest" at around a half a mil.

John

Shocking, ain't it? :yes:

Pete

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Nice spin Hedging?

Not in the least. The examples I cited should be ample evidence that what I said is true.

There's also the data you provided which pretty well establishes that, at least as far as elected officials go, neither party differs much if at all in regard to personal wealth.

Or does being Dem mean you don't look out for what's yours?

I won't put a political label on this but there are things like compassion, generosity and enlightened self interest which motivate some of us but by no means all of us.

John

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Not in the least. The examples I cited should be ample evidence that what I said is true.

There's also the data you provided which pretty well establishes that, at least as far as elected officials go, neither party differs much if at all in regard to personal wealth.



I won't put a political label on this but there are things like compassion, generosity and enlightened self interest which motivate some of us but by no means all of us.

John

Unfortunately, it does highlight the concern that both sides of the aisle could be prone to losing touch with the concerns of working folk, particularly when they have so much in common with the spit-shined lobbyists who court them.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Unfortunately, it does highlight the concern that both sides of the aisle could be prone to losing touch with the concerns of working folk, particularly when they have so much in common with the spit-shined lobbyists who court them.

Regards,

D-Ray

Sad but true.

I hate to say this but there is an element of old money vs. new in this. Old school old wealth often grew up with a sense of noblesse oblige. They were taught that their advantaged circumstances conferred upon them the responsibility to look after the welfare of those less fortunate. I think this was at least in part what motivated people like FDR and RFK.

On the other hand, people who have acquired their wealth during their own lifetimes weren't raised with the same sense of obligation. Rather, they think, "I did it on my own. Why the heck can't you?"

John

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Not in the least. The examples I cited should be ample evidence that what I said is true.

There's also the data you provided which pretty well establishes that, at least as far as elected officials go, neither party differs much if at all in regard to personal wealth.

I won't put a political label on this but there are things like compassion, generosity and enlightened self interest which motivate some of us but by no means all of us.

John

Much if not all? Have you added it up? I happen to know Dems have been historically the wealthier. And there have been many studies showing Conservatives are more generous charity wise. Using Kennedy and Rockefeller is a two edged sword for sure.

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Unfortunately, it does highlight the concern that both sides of the aisle could be prone to losing touch with the concerns of working folk, particularly when they have so much in common with the spit-shined lobbyists who court them.

Regards,

D-Ray

Very well said :thumbsup: I'd like to meet a multi-(or multi-multi-multi)millionaire that worries about paying his gas bill!

Pete

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Much if not all? Have you added it up?

No, and I'm not going to. That's 535 people. Scanning it shows me that the Dems and Reps are pretty well evenly distributed top to bottom.

I happen to know Dems have been historically the wealthier. And there have been many studies showing Conservatives are more generous charity wise. Using Kennedy and Rockefeller is a two edged sword for sure.

Pete, you say that but you can't back it up with stats. Your list from Open Secrets doesn't support the case you were making. Can you provide anything that shows conservatives to be more generous than liberals?

I used the Kennedys and the Roosevelts, not the Rockefellers. I don't see that as a double edged sword at all. The record is quite clear as to their social conscience.

Ifan

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

I'd like to meet a multi-(or multi-multi-multi)millionaire that worries about paying his gas bill!

Pete

There might be some who worry about paying yours.

Johannes

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by Boreas

There might be some who worry about paying yours.

Johannes

Could you let me know who to call? The Feds just take more money. Obama's tax 'cut' cost me big on my refund!

Charity?

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_b...sity_inde.html

http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...ts+republicans

I WILL do some math with that spreadsheet.

I'm sorry I mixed up Rockefeller with FDR. But it doesn't really matter, we're talking about the evil rich here.

Pete

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

I'm sorry I mixed up Rockefeller with FDR. But it doesn't really matter, we're talking about the evil rich here.

Pete

Pete, did you forget the smiley or do you really think all rich are evil?

Jovan

[piece-itpete]

Sorry John, yes indeed.

:-) just kidding. I thought since everyone knows I''m generally deregulation and lower taxes and less government I'm really a tool of them

Pete