According to a recent survey, Democrat members of Congress hold more of the top ten wealthiest districts in the country than Republicans do. Although the general consensus is that Republicans are usually the richer politicians, it has been found that Carolyn Maloney's district, the 12th Congressional District in New York, commonly known as the Upper East Side, makes an average per capita income of $75,479, making it one of the wealthiest districts. Other Democratic politicians hold equally wealthy districts throughout New York and California, two consistently blue states. Republican districts make about $1,000 less on average than the average Democratic district.
I believe that this article isn't quite understanding the concept of "party of the rich." Democrats may hold more wealthy Congressional districts, but what the author should also consider is that almost any district in New York City, especially Manhattan, is going to be supremely wealthy in comparison to districts somewhere in the back alleys of Kansas. Additionally, the concept of "party of the rich" applies more to the actual wealth that Republicans amass through untaxed capital made through stock market investments. With this, Republicans are also more likely to support the incredibly wealthy through their economic policies of laissez-faire, and as such really are the party of the rich.
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2014/10/16/3905688_party-of-the-rich-in-congress.html?rh=1
The author mentions this in his article, when he quotes Mitt Romney as saying the Republicans are "the party of the people who want to get rich." Those that want to get rich would be more receptive to Republican economic policies such as lower taxes for the wealthy and the belief that "corporations are people too." What the article also doesn't take into account is the locations of these wealthiest districts. Most are in New York and California, the most socially liberal places in the country. Therefore, residents of those states are more likely to vote Democrat based on the party's social policies such as support of gay marriage, even if the economic policies are perceived to be anti-rich.
ReplyDeleteAn article by new.investors.com in April proved that Democrats are the "party of the rich," and not Republicans. But another article by Forbes later on in July proved that Republicans are wealthier than Democrats. I really think that the only thing I could get out of these two opposing articles is that Republicans have more wealthier individuals, while Democrats have lots of wealth, but spread out to a larger group of people, instead of having the money focused on certain individuals like Republicans. Thus, it is difficult to actually determine who is the "party of the rich."
ReplyDeletehttp://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/040214-695716-democrat-political-donations-
outstrip-republicans.htm
http://www.forbes.com/sites/katiasavchuk/2014/07/09/are-americas-richest-families-republicans-or-democrats/
Republicans are known as the "party of the rich" because a good amount of wealthy individuals tend to be republican. It is not because the whole party is rich. In fact there are many stereotypes of dumb, poor southerners being republicans. The article states that on average people in democratic districts make 1,000 dollars more. That amount is quite small and is probably in the margin of error.
ReplyDelete