1 in 8 "Americans" recieve food stamps. Outrageous!

[Rainsford]

...
The bottom line is, it is the D's who most largely represent, and are, rich. Because they are majority now? Perhaps. But the reason is irrelevant. What *is* relevant is the D's are the party of the rich now.
...

Wait...what?

The reason is completely relevant, because the implication in calling a group "the party of the rich" is that they OVER-represent rich folks. A party that represents more rich people because they represent more people overall isn't "the party of the rich" any more than it's "the party of the poor" or "the party of the middle class".

More rich people voting Democratic isn't significant when more of EVERYONE is voting Democratic. And for that matter, it's been pointed out that Democrats have less support among rich people than among the population as a whole. So while Republican popularity is down with everyone, rich people are OVER-represented among Republicans, and UNDER-represented among Democrats. I'd say it's pretty hard to make the argument that Democrats are "the party of the rich" in those circumstances.

 

[blackangst1]

Wait...what?

The reason is completely relevant, because the implication in calling a group "the party of the rich" is that they OVER-represent rich folks. A party that represents more rich people because they represent more people overall isn't "the party of the rich" any more than it's "the party of the poor" or "the party of the middle class".

More rich people voting Democratic isn't significant when more of EVERYONE is voting Democratic. And for that matter, it's been pointed out that Democrats have less support among rich people than among the population as a whole. So while Republican popularity is down with everyone, rich people are OVER-represented among Republicans, and UNDER-represented among Democrats. I'd say it's pretty hard to make the argument that Democrats are "the party of the rich" in those circumstances.

Wheres the data that suggests the GOP is the party of the rich? They certainly used to be, but not anymore.

edit: how about PAC money etc? The Dems still win. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/09/29/lobbyists-pacs-donate-more-to-democrats/

Lobbyists, PACs Donate More to Democrats

Less than a year into Democrats’ dominance of Washington, money is following power.
New campaign finance data shows that Democrats now receive far more campaign cash from lobbyists and corporate fund-raising arms than Republicans.
Lobbyists have donated twice as much to Democrats as Republicans this year -– and corporate PACs have sent 60% of their money to Democrats, according to the data. That’s a reversal from just a few years ago when Republicans controlled Congress and the White House.


Sorry man but there is no data that suggest the GOP represents the rich to the scale of the Dems any more. May have been true a few years ago, but the Dems have the seat now.

 

[fskimospy]

But you haven't proven anything. You are supplying numbers that are irrelevant as well as making unsubstantiated claims of correlation. I don't have to provide evidence to prove any of my claims, because I'm not the one making a positive declaration here. I'm just showing you why your evidence doesn't say what you claim it says.

Democrats do not 'represent the rich' simply by being rich, they represent the rich when they advance their interests. In order to prove your point you need to show either that A.) Democratic policies aid the rich more than Republican ones. or B.) That increasing wealth of a member of Congress is correlated with a more rich friendly voting record. You have done neither.

As I said before you have given numbers for Obama and Hillary outraising McCain, but they did so across ALL demographic groups, not just the rich. In fact if anything the numbers you supplied only helped my case further. McCain's fundraising was more reliant upon larger contributions than Obama's was. (I think it is a reasonable assumption that larger contributors = higher income)

I have shown you that within the numbers you are trying to supply to prove your point that you are actually hurting your case. You have made a positive statement that the Democrats are now the party of the rich, and you have failed to provide evidence for it. Democrats representing rich people at a lower rate than their national average and having a smaller percentage of their donations come from the wealthy than their competition is the exact opposite of what you're trying to say.

 

[fskimospy]

Wheres the data that suggests the GOP is the party of the rich? They certainly used to be, but not anymore.

edit: how about PAC money etc? The Dems still win. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/09/29/lobbyists-pacs-donate-more-to-democrats/

Lobbyists, PACs Donate More to Democrats

Less than a year into Democrats’ dominance of Washington, money is following power.
New campaign finance data shows that Democrats now receive far more campaign cash from lobbyists and corporate fund-raising arms than Republicans.
Lobbyists have donated twice as much to Democrats as Republicans this year -– and corporate PACs have sent 60% of their money to Democrats, according to the data. That’s a reversal from just a few years ago when Republicans controlled Congress and the White House.


Sorry man but there is no data that suggest the GOP represents the rich to the scale of the Dems any more. May have been true a few years ago, but the Dems have the seat now.

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how campaign finance works. The party in power ALWAYS gets more cash than the party out of power, regardless of their agenda. In that respect the party that controls the government is eternally the 'party of the rich', making it a meaningless distinction.

 

[blackangst1]

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how campaign finance works. The party in power ALWAYS gets more cash than the party out of power, regardless of their agenda. In that respect the party that controls the government is eternally the 'party of the rich', making it a meaningless distinction.

Wow. I thought you as a critical thinker, not close minded. I guess I was wrong.

Sorry man. Youre wrong on this. I provided many, many examples of why the Dems are the party of rich, representing the rich moreso than the GOP ever did, supporting the rich's interests, not to mention having more money than the GOP, and how they are at the beckoned call of PACS and the like. Dont like it, too bad. Your assertion "the party that controls the government is eternally the 'party of the rich' is bullshit. Even when the GOP was out of power, they represented the rich like the Dems never did. Its a straw man argument. Even if your incorrect statement were true, the Dems are the party of the rich (still).

edit: Can you find when the last time the Democrats represented so much money, and received so much PAC money? Hint: it was before 1986. Were your theory true, it would be cyclical. It isnt.

 

[fskimospy]

Wow. I thought you as a critical thinker, not close minded. I guess I was wrong.

Sorry man. Youre wrong on this. I provided many, many examples of why the Dems are the party of rich, representing the rich moreso than the GOP ever did, supporting the rich's interests, not to mention having more money than the GOP, and how they are at the beckoned call of PACS and the like. Dont like it, too bad. Your assertion "the party that controls the government is eternally the 'party of the rich' is bullshit. Even when the GOP was out of power, they represented the rich like the Dems never did. Its a straw man argument. Even if your incorrect statement were true, the Dems are the party of the rich (still).

I'm sorry if you don't like it but I've pointed out to you the logical flaws in your argument repeatedly. As Rainsford said, you appear to believe that a party who attracts a smaller percentage of rich people than their national average is the 'party of the rich' because they represent more rich people in absolute numbers. This is simply baffling. This is the electoral equivalent of that thread where conservatives made the claim that taxes became more progressive under Bush because they paid in more total dollars than before despite having their rates lowered. Nonsensical.

I don't believe that the party in power is eternally the party of the rich, and I agree that it's bullshit. It is the inescapable conclusion that one must make if you believe that larger amounts of corporate and PAC donations to a party make it the party of the rich however. In fact that's the entire point of why I said it, to show you the flaw in your reasoning.

I'm not closed minded, you're just wrong. If you can provide evidence to show any of the things I requested, then I would certainly be open to changing my mind about the issue. What you've provided so far is a mess.

 

[fskimospy]

Here's a link to a story that shows you exactly what I'm talking about.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_17/b4031050.htm

Donations follow power. This really shouldn't be a shock to anyone.

 

[blackangst1]

I'm sorry if you don't like it but I've pointed out to you the logical flaws in your argument repeatedly. As Rainsford said, you appear to believe that a party who attracts a smaller percentage of rich people than their national average is the 'party of the rich' because they represent more rich people in absolute numbers. This is simply baffling. This is the electoral equivalent of that thread where conservatives made the claim that taxes became more progressive under Bush because they paid in more total dollars than before despite having their rates lowered. Nonsensical.

I don't believe that the party in power is eternally the party of the rich, and I agree that it's bullshit. It is the inescapable conclusion that one must make if you believe that larger amounts of corporate and PAC donations to a party make it the party of the rich however. In fact that's the entire point of why I said it, to show you the flaw in your reasoning.

I'm not closed minded, you're just wrong. If you can provide evidence to show any of the things I requested, then I would certainly be open to changing my mind about the issue. What you've provided so far is a mess.

So tell me. What evidence would change your mind? What kind of proof would you like to see? (As if what Ive provided, which it doesnt look like youve actually read, doesnt seem to convince you).

 

[fskimospy]

So tell me. What evidence would change your mind? What kind of proof would you like to see? (As if what Ive provided, which it doesnt look like youve actually read, doesnt seem to convince you).

I already told you, in fact I've requested it several times. Link me a study that shows a positive, statistically significant correlation between personal wealth and voting on issues that benefit the rich for members of Congress, controlling for party ID.

The other links you provided were to data that you have interpreted incorrectly, so there's not really much you can do about that other than to provide me with different data.

 

[blackangst1]

Here's a link to a story that shows you exactly what I'm talking about.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_17/b4031050.htm

Donations follow power. This really shouldn't be a shock to anyone.

This supports exactly what Ive been saying. The shift started about 2-3 years ago. It hasnt swung in the Democrats way for at LEAST 30 years. This article does not address what you seem to be saying...that every election PAC/donation/representation shifts parties to whomever is in control. It compliments what Ive been posting. Here's a chart of hard PAC money donations:

And soft money:

So as you can see, it doesnt fluctuate. The GOP has had a lock on the rich for at least 30 years. Not any more.

Thanks for that

BTW my source is opensecrets.org

 

[fskimospy]

BTW my source is opensecrets.org

No my article says the exact opposite of what you're saying, and you have once again misunderstood data you have put on here.

Your charts come from this link: http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/ptytots.php?cycle=2008

That is TOTAL fundraising from all supporters, NOT fundraising from PACs. In fact the link specifically states that the likely cause for such a fundraising disparity in this case is from a sophisticated direct mailing system that the Republicans created to get contributions from individuals, ie: not from PACs.

 

[blackangst1]

No my article says the exact opposite of what you're saying, and you have once again misunderstood data you have put on here.

Your charts come from this link: http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/ptytots.php?cycle=2008

That is TOTAL fundraising from all supporters, NOT fundraising from PACs. In fact the link specifically states that the likely cause for such a fundraising disparity in this case is from a sophisticated direct mailing system that the Republicans created to get contributions from individuals, ie: not from PACs.

Yes they do. I said they did. Thanks Captain Obvious.

My bad I threw PAC in with hard donations and should have been the second chart for soft. Either way.

Since its not a matter of me misunderstanding what Im posting but rather you not seeing the obvious, let me ask you this. What are the charactoristics of a party that would be labled the party of the rich? How do *you* define that? Maybe we define them differently? Here's how I define it:

1. Their party receives the greatest donations consistently, both hard and soft.
2. Their party leads by example by coming from wealthy backgrounds or being wealthy themselves.
3. Their bill sponsorship and voting suggests they protect the wealthy.

Does that about cover it? In these examples, the Dems win. And have for several years, and each year seem to pull ahead even further.

So tell me. Since I'm so confused. Point me to evidence the GOP is (still) the party of the rich. The Dems have labled them that for decades, and by every matrix they've used to define it, they find themselves there now.

 

[Craig234]

No my article says the exact opposite of what you're saying, and you have once again misunderstood data you have put on here.

Your charts come from this link: http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/ptytots.php?cycle=2008

That is TOTAL fundraising from all supporters, NOT fundraising from PACs. In fact the link specifically states that the likely cause for such a fundraising disparity in this case is from a sophisticated direct mailing system that the Republicans created to get contributions from individuals, ie: not from PACs.

Eskimo, nice trying even if you are beating yuour head against a wall.

The discussion needs to have a definition for the term 'party of the rich'. I define that as the party who pushes policies that make the rih richer in theshort term at the expense of others. Nothing to do with how much money its politicians own, nothing to do with who the wealthy give their money to, just those policies. That doesn't mean policies that make everyone wealthier and are 'good for the country'.

Warren Buffet is a billionare who speaks out for the need to raise taxes on the wealthy, making him not a representtive of the 'party of the rich'. A truck driver who believes what he hears on right-wing talk radio and has little money but supports the policies that make the rich richer is a member of the party for the rich.

For example, Kennedy was from one of America's wealthies families, and supported helping the poor. Nixon, his opponent, was from a poor background and supported the policies I describe for the rich.

I see a lot of Republicans get confused over these things, discussing the politics of wealth by getting mad about a politician who is well off, missing the point.

It's the trillions from policy that matter, not the rest. Some members of the 'party of the rich' don't even mean to be 'servants of the rich', they bellieve the propaganda themselves, but help those policies.

How do you discuss with someone who doesn't understand that thet argument that all tax cuts increase prosperity for everyone - trickle down - is propaganda to get people to support tax cuts on the rich that really serve mainly to enrich the rich and transfer the debt to everyone else? You can't appeal to the desire to help the average American because they are convinced they are doing just that.

They 'party of the rich' refers to the Republican party that has so sold out to the rich agenda, even while the Democrats are largely compromised but not nearly as commited to the sellout. That's why you see them use myths and propaganda, about 'limousine lliberlas' or the greedy poor, to try to hide their own agenda that's so corrupt.

That's why you get people like Specop derfending the ideology blindly and passionatley - the lies from Reagan to get people like Specop to support him - but ignore the facts of the effects of the policies. It's the same blind ideology used by the USSR supporters who say to look at its goals, not the actual results. It's about ending poverty, everyone working happily and cooperatively, not about poverty and tyranny and corruption.

They cannot look at the logic about the economic issues with Reagan policies. It's like the rich guy who can't see a woman is only after his money while everyone tells him.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes they do. I said they did. Thanks Captain Obvious.

My bad I threw PAC in with hard donations and should have been the second chart for soft. Either way.

Since its not a matter of me misunderstanding what Im posting but rather you not seeing the obvious, let me ask you this. What are the charactoristics of a party that would be labled the party of the rich? How do *you* define that? Maybe we define them differently? Here's how I define it:

1. Their party receives the greatest donations consistently, both hard and soft.
2. Their party leads by example by coming from wealthy backgrounds or being wealthy themselves.
3. Their bill sponsorship and voting suggests they protect the wealthy.

Does that about cover it? In these examples, the Dems win. And have for several years, and each year seem to pull ahead even further.

So tell me. Since I'm so confused. Point me to evidence the GOP is (still) the party of the rich. The Dems have labled them that for decades, and by every matrix they've used to define it, they find themselves there now.

I provided the link so that you and others could see the commentary that they provided along with that data, specifically how it was not PACs as you claimed and that the rationale they gave not only mentioned the reason for the Republican fundraising advantage coming from individuals, but how the Democratic takeover of Congress was aiding their totals. Soft money is not PAC money, soft money is a contribution to a party, not to a candidate. Your charts were showing completely different information than you were claiming they were.

As for your description of what a party of the rich would be, I don't think it's even close. The sheer amount in donations is irrelevant. If every person in the bottom two quintiles gave a party $100 they would out raise every other party by a country mile and therefore by your definition be the 'party of the rich'. That doesn't make any sense. Furthermore the personal income of members of a party is irrelevant as to what the party stands for. If a member of Congress passed a law to execute everyone who had more than $10 million in assets but was himself quite wealthy, he would still meet your standard for 'representing the rich'. I imagine the rich guys being put up against the wall would disagree with your description.

The party of rich people is one where the rich are disproportionately represented, and they are overrepresented in this way due to specific policies by that party which benefit them. If you asked the average rich person which party is more likely to pass policy that benefited them, I would bet you a lot of money that they would say 'the Republicans'.

You seem to be getting angry from this discussion, and I'm really not sure why. I study this sort of thing, and I'm just telling you that your description of what is going on is wrong. This isn't really one of those grey areas where it's six/one half dozen.

 

[nobodyknows]

Na, I am pretty sure that is for the 47% of eligible Americans who pay zero income tax or get a tax credit.

If you are paying taxes, you are getting screwed by 47% of your fellow citizens while you are trying to live your life.

Is that how you justify your inccessant whining? I guess you are that simple minded, so???

 

[nobodyknows]

Sorry. figures dont lie.

Yes, but liars figure.

 

[blackangst1]

Eskimo, nice trying even if you are beating yuour head against a wall.

The discussion needs to have a definition for the term 'party of the rich'. I define that as the party who pushes policies that make the rih richer in theshort term at the expense of others. Nothing to do with how much money its politicians own, nothing to do with who the wealthy give their money to, just those policies. That doesn't mean policies that make everyone wealthier and are 'good for the country'.

You mean like HR 4154 that passed yesterday? Did you know that that bill (a tax CUT for inheritances over $1 million, and ensures less than 1/4 of 1% ever pay inheritance tax.) was not only sponsored by a D, but overwhelming passed by D's? Like that you mean? Oops. Do you need to be reminded the majority of Democrats who voted for Bush's tax cuts in 2001?

Warren Buffet is a billionare who speaks out for the need to raise taxes on the wealthy, making him not a representtive of the 'party of the rich'. A truck driver who believes what he hears on right-wing talk radio and has little money but supports the policies that make the rich richer is a member of the party for the rich.

Heh. Quote a few ultra rich have said this, both liberal and conservative. This isnt a D or R thing.

For example, Kennedy was from one of America's wealthies families, and supported helping the poor. Nixon, his opponent, was from a poor background and supported the policies I describe for the rich.

Can you name amiserly billionaire that is Republican? I didnt think so. Every single person on the Forbes list gives to charity or has a charity in their name. Quit politicizing this as a D and R thing. The R's give just as much.

I see a lot of Republicans get confused over these things, discussing the politics of wealth by getting mad about a politician who is well off, missing the point.

It's the trillions from policy that matter, not the rest. Some members of the 'party of the rich' don't even mean to be 'servants of the rich', they bellieve the propaganda themselves, but help those policies.

Yep it is. Would you like me to list another 5 bills that Democrats support that protect the rich? Or would I be misunderstanding those too?

How do you discuss with someone who doesn't understand that thet argument that all tax cuts increase prosperity for everyone - trickle down - is propaganda to get people to support tax cuts on the rich that really serve mainly to enrich the rich and transfer the debt to everyone else? You can't appeal to the desire to help the average American because they are convinced they are doing just that.

They 'party of the rich' refers to the Republican party that has so sold out to the rich agenda, even while the Democrats are largely compromised but not nearly as commited to the sellout. That's why you see them use myths and propaganda, about 'limousine lliberlas' or the greedy poor, to try to hide their own agenda that's so corrupt.

That's why you get people like Specop derfending the ideology blindly and passionatley - the lies from Reagan to get people like Specop to support him - but ignore the facts of the effects of the policies. It's the same blind ideology used by the USSR supporters who say to look at its goals, not the actual results. It's about ending poverty, everyone working happily and cooperatively, not about poverty and tyranny and corruption.

They cannot look at the logic about the economic issues with Reagan policies. It's like the rich guy who can't see a woman is only after his money while everyone tells him.

Dude, you are as blind and partisan as they come. Ive proven (even in this reply) the Democrats favor the rich like the GOP has for decades. The fact you ignore the legislation they draft and pass is YOUR issue, not ours.

 

[blackangst1]

I provided the link so that you and others could see the commentary that they provided along with that data, specifically how it was not PACs as you claimed and that the rationale they gave not only mentioned the reason for the Republican fundraising advantage coming from individuals, but how the Democratic takeover of Congress was aiding their totals. Soft money is not PAC money, soft money is a contribution to a party, not to a candidate. Your charts were showing completely different information than you were claiming they were.

As for your description of what a party of the rich would be, I don't think it's even close. The sheer amount in donations is irrelevant. If every person in the bottom two quintiles gave a party $100 they would out raise every other party by a country mile and therefore by your definition be the 'party of the rich'. That doesn't make any sense. Furthermore the personal income of members of a party is irrelevant as to what the party stands for. If a member of Congress passed a law to execute everyone who had more than $10 million in assets but was himself quite wealthy, he would still meet your standard for 'representing the rich'. I imagine the rich guys being put up against the wall would disagree with your description.

The party of rich people is one where the rich are disproportionately represented, and they are overrepresented in this way due to specific policies by that party which benefit them. If you asked the average rich person which party is more likely to pass policy that benefited them, I would bet you a lot of money that they would say 'the Republicans'.

You seem to be getting angry from this discussion, and I'm really not sure why. I study this sort of thing, and I'm just telling you that your description of what is going on is wrong. This isn't really one of those grey areas where it's six/one half dozen.

Wanna start then with HR 4154 passed yesterday? It is legislation drafted and passed by Democrats that does NOTHING but favor the rich. Or how about the add-on to the stimulus that Democrats passed to give HUGE tax cuts to Hollywood film producers?

How many pieces of legislation do you want?

 

[fskimospy]

Wanna start then with HR 4154 passed yesterday? It is legislation drafted and passed by Democrats that does NOTHING but favor the rich.

How many pieces of legislation do you want?

Are you serious? HR 4154 is a $233 billion tax cut over 10 years for wealthy people. Wow, I guess those Democrats really do love the rich. Wait a second, lets look at HR3200 which includes a $544 billion tax increase on rich people over the next 10 years. Or even better, we could stop trying to cherry pick legislation that supports our cases and look at the actions of the party as a whole.

The argument is not that Democrats never pass legislation that is favorable to rich people, it's that they do so to a considerably lesser degree than the Republicans do. You're the one that has made the contention that the Democrats have equaled or surpassed the GOP in their catering to the rich, and we've all seen how you weren't reading your information correctly and drawing bad conclusions from it. That's really the beginning and end of it.

Bad info in, bad info out. Like you said at the beginning, numbers don't lie. I think you need to take a step back and look at those numbers again so that you can see what they are actually trying to tell you.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, lets look at the 2001 Bush tax cut roll call vote. Lets look at the 2003 tax cut roll call vote too.

2001 vote:

House

Republican: 215 Yea votes. (100%, 4 abstained)
Democrat: 13 yea votes. (6%)

Senate

Republicans: 49 yea votes. (100%)
Democrats: 12 yea votes (24%)


2003 vote:

House

Republicans: 224 yea votes (99.6%)
Democrats: 7 yea votes (3.4%)

Senate

Republicans: 48 yea votes (96%)
Democrats: 2 yea votes (4%)

Yeah, the Democrats are totally the party of the rich. What was I thinking?

EDIT: Ah ha, sorry. Your mention of the 2001 Bush tax cuts was in your reply to Craig. Your description of the 'majority' of Democrats voting for it is wildly false.

 

[Zebo]

The argument is not that Democrats never pass legislation that is favorable to rich people, it's that they do so to a considerably lesser degree than the Republicans do.
-------------
Precisely, one has to be pretty thick not to see this.

PS Why are you wasting your time with this fool?

 

[blackangst1]

Are you serious? HR 4154 is a $233 billion tax cut over 10 years for wealthy people. Wow, I guess those Democrats really do love the rich. Wait a second, lets look at HR3200 which includes a $544 billion tax increase on rich people over the next 10 years. Or even better, we could stop trying to cherry pick legislation that supports our cases and look at the actions of the party as a whole.

The argument is not that Democrats never pass legislation that is favorable to rich people, it's that they do so to a considerably lesser degree than the Republicans do. You're the one that has made the contention that the Democrats have equaled or surpassed the GOP in their catering to the rich, and we've all seen how you weren't reading your information correctly and drawing bad conclusions from it. That's really the beginning and end of it.

Bad info in, bad info out. Like you said at the beginning, numbers don't lie. I think you need to take a step back and look at those numbers again so that you can see what they are actually trying to tell you.

lol

The Democrats are changing. Ive said that. And repeatedly Ive shown in every way, and included links, to support what Ive said. All you have done is tell me Ive misunderstood. The tide is turning, and the Democrats are chasing the dollar. Like the GOP has done for decades. No, *one* piece of legislation proves nothing. I can post many others to support that the Democrats are now as protective of their money (not only their own, but their electorate) as the GOP has been for decades. Times are changing.

Youve provided...well...your opinion. Have a great nite in fantasy land Im out.

 

[blackangst1]

The argument is not that Democrats never pass legislation that is favorable to rich people, it's that they do so to a considerably lesser degree than the Republicans do.
-------------
Precisely, one has to be pretty thick not to see this.

PS Why are you wasting your time with this fool?

This statement was true...until about 2 years ago. You gonna join him in this circle jerk also?

LOL

You have a great nite too

 

[blackangst1]

Yes, lets look at the 2001 Bush tax cut roll call vote. Lets look at the 2003 tax cut roll call vote too.

2001 vote:

House

Republican: 215 Yea votes. (100%, 4 abstained)
Democrat: 13 yea votes. (6%)

Senate

Republicans: 49 yea votes. (100%)
Democrats: 12 yea votes (24%)


2003 vote:

House

Republicans: 224 yea votes (99.6%)
Democrats: 7 yea votes (3.4%)

Senate

Republicans: 48 yea votes (96%)
Democrats: 2 yea votes (4%)

Yeah, the Democrats are totally the party of the rich. What was I thinking?

EDIT: I see that you edited your post. Maybe I'm tired or crazy but I'm pretty sure that you originally asked how many Democrats voted for the Bush tax cuts and have since changed it to an amendment to the stimulus package. If I'm just nuts then I guess disregard this.

No you arent crazy, but I am tired.

Final roll call: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll149.xml

28 house Dems and 12 senate Dems for 2001 tax cuts. That was kind of the beginning. I mentioned the stimulus package because of an add on that was the first of estate tax cuts proposed by Lincoln D of AR, and Kyle R of AZ. Sorry if it was confusing.

 

[fskimospy]

lol

The Democrats are changing. Ive said that. And repeatedly Ive shown in every way, and included links, to support what Ive said. All you have done is tell me Ive misunderstood. The tide is turning, and the Democrats are chasing the dollar. Like the GOP has done for decades. No, *one* piece of legislation proves nothing. I can post many others to support that the Democrats are now as protective of their money (not only their own, but their electorate) as the GOP has been for decades. Times are changing.

Youve provided...well...your opinion. Have a great nite in fantasy land Im out.

The reason why all I've told you is that you've misunderstood is because I really don't know what else to say. I can provide links, but they will show you the same information that you've already linked. The problem here is not with the data provided, it's that you're drawing unsupportable conclusions from that data.

I like you, you're one of my favorite conservative posters on here. In this situation though we're talking about a subject that I am intimately familiar with and I'm honestly telling you that on this one you're just wrong.