Poll: Republican Party Mostly Wants To Help The Rich - No Kidding

[Cigar]

The new poll found that 51 percent of Americans think Republicans are most interested in helping the rich, while 28 percent said they're most interested in helping the middle class. Another 7 percent said the GOP is most interested in helping the poor.

Democrats almost universally dubbed the GOP the party of the rich. A 45 percent plurality of independents also saw Republicans as most interested in helping the wealthy, while only 28 percent said the middle class and 7 percent said the poor.

Indeed, for independents, both parties lean toward the interests of the rich. Thirty-two percent of independents said Democrats are most interested in helping the rich, 20 percent said the poor, and 20 percent said the middle class.

Americans overall were roughly evenly divided on what they think the Democratic Party is up to. Twenty-eight percent said the party works for the rich, 27 percent said the middle class, and 25 percent said the poor.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/25/republican-party-rich_n_3984789.html

Of course none of these results are shocking. It is reassuring that few people, other than those who live in the "bubble world" of FOX, Rush and Sean, see the republican party as anything other than what it really is.

[patrickt]

The Huffington Post Poll. I'm shocked it didn't say Republicans eat babies.

[jillian]

The Huffington Post Poll. I'm shocked it didn't say Republicans eat babies.


how'd that whole skewed polls thing work out for you last november?

[Cigar]

The Huffington Post Poll. I'm shocked it didn't say Republicans eat babies.

Don't be silly ... Republicans are Babies ... haven't you been watching. :laugh:

[Cigar]

how'd that whole skewed polls thing work out for you last november?

I'm sure they still can sit without discomfort and pain. :laugh:

[keymanjim]

how'd that whole skewed polls thing work out for you last november?
Still trying figure out how 120% voter turnout isn't cheating.

[Mainecoons]

They may want to but it is Obama who has done it. Keep running away from that 120 percent of income since 2009 going to the one percent, there, Cigar.

:rofl:

[Cigar]

Still trying figure out how 120% voter turnout isn't cheating.

I guess once they figure it out ... Republicans may win an Election :laugh:

[Mainecoons]

Thanks for admitting you all cheat, Cigar.

That's a real breakthrough on your part.

[Common]

They cant even put any shade on it anymore, everything they do is for the rich and of the rich. They were smart enough to collect select groups of have nots to support them while they stick it to them in the end.

[KC]

That's only half the story though, isn't it?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/19/oligarchic-tendencies-study-finds-only-the-wealthy-get-represented-in-the-senate/



The study used data from the 2004 National Annenberg Election Survey to compare constituents’ political opinion to the voting behavior of their Senators in the 107th through 111th Congresses. With more than 90,000 respondents, the NAES is the largest public opinion survey conducted during presidential elections.

In all of the five Congresses examined, the voting records of Senators were consistently aligned with the opinions of their wealthiest constituents. The opinions of lower-class constituents, however, never appeared to influence the Senators’ voting behavior.

The neglect of lower income groups was a bipartisan affair. Democrats were not any more responsive to the poor than Republicans.

“My analysis, which examines Senator behavior on a large number of votes, shows evidence of responsiveness to only the wealthy, a distinct problem for any democracy,” Hayes wrote in the study. “In some ways, this suggests oligarchic tendencies in the American system, a finding echoed in other research.”

Hayes found that middle-class opinion was only represented in two of the Congresses examined. In the 110th and 111th Congresses, when Democrats controlled both the Senate and the House, the voting records of Senators reflected the opinions of middle-class constituents as well as upper-class constituents.

Contrary to popular opinion, it was Democrats — not Republicans — who were more responsive to upper-class opinion in the 111th Congress.

[jillian]

Still trying figure out how 120% voter turnout isn't cheating.

er,.... becauise there wasn't 120% voter turnout...except in the rightwintgnutblogosphere...

[jillian]

That's only half the story though, isn't it?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/19/oligarchic-tendencies-study-finds-only-the-wealthy-get-represented-in-the-senate/

ok.. so they should get money out of politics. i agree.

too bad citizens united prohibits that.

[KC]

ok.. so they should get money out of politics. i agree.

too bad citizens united prohibits that.

But both parties benefit from the money in politics... immensely. What incentives are there for politicians to get money out of politics, even without Citizens United?

[Alyosha]

Republicans are right leaning Keynesians no different than Dems are left leaning Keynesians. None of them really care about people. They just pick a handful of issues that they think will make them look like they do.

[jillian]

But both parties benefit from the money in politics... immensely. What incentives are there for politicians to get money out of politics, even without Citizens United?

if political expenditures were limited to a fund provided by the government and politicians weren't allowed to accept donations, we'd be much better off.

poof... no more lobbyists.

no more corporate sponsors of politicians.

no more koch brothers or citizens united or undisclosed funding//conflicts of interest.

i love it.

[KC]

if political expenditures were limited to a fund provided by the government and politicians weren't allowed to accept donations, we'd be much better off.

poof... no more lobbyists.

no more corporate sponsors of politicians.

no more koch brothers or citizens united or undisclosed funding//conflicts of interest.

i love it.

I agree, we'd be much better off if campaigns were 100% publicly funded, but you didn't answer my question. What incentive is there for the political elite to design such a system? They obviously did not do so when the opportunity existed.

[keymanjim]

er,.... becauise there wasn't 120% voter turnout...except in the rightwintgnutblogosphere...
I can show you one district that had 23,300% voter turnout.

[jillian]

I agree, we'd be much better off if campaigns were 100% publicly funded, but you didn't answer my question. What incentive is there for the political elite to design such a system? They obviously did not do so when the opportunity existed.

there were people on both sides who wanted campaign finance reform. i'll direct your attention to the mccain-feingold bill.

in this case, a law was passed requiring accountablitlity. they managed that.... and rightfully so.

and then citizens united brought suit and won... getting those regulations stricken.

so there are people of good will who pass these rules. (even if they don't go far enough). it was the right of the court that did the bidding of the corporatists.

something i found personally disappointing for about a thousand reasons.

[KC]

there were people on both sides who wanted campaign finance reform. i'll direct your attention to the mccain-feingold bill.

in this case, a law was passed requiring accountablitlity. they managed that.... and rightfully so.

and then citizens united brought suit and won... getting those regulations stricken.

so there are people of good will who pass these rules. (even if they don't go far enough). it was the right of the court that did the bidding of the corporatists.

something i found personally disappointing for about a thousand reasons.

Was McCain Feingold passed out of good will or out of self interest? Who benefits from limits to how much money can be spent, incumbents or challengers?

With limits to how much money can be spent on a candidate, incumbent candidates have a huge fundraising advantage since they have more name recognition. The only way to effectively reform campaign finance is to eliminate private contributions to campaigns altogether. Of course in an ideal world there would be no second term for any politicians anyhow.

I'm skeptical that there is a realistic solution to campaign finance. Our system is not set up in such a way that you can channel incentives to get politicians to act in a benevolent way. This isn't anything new, Alexis de Tocqueville could see this as early as the 1830s.

[Paperback Writer]

I think Russ Feingold was one of the rare good guys.

[jillian]

I think Russ Feingold was one of the rare good guys.

he was

[GrassrootsConservative]

:laughing4:

[nic34]

Was McCain Feingold passed out of good will or out of self interest? Who benefits from limits to how much money can be spent, incumbents or challengers?

With limits to how much money can be spent on a candidate, incumbent candidates have a huge fundraising advantage since they have more name recognition. The only way to effectively reform campaign finance is to eliminate private contributions to campaigns altogether. Of course in an ideal world there would be no second term for any politicians anyhow.

I'm skeptical that there is a realistic solution to campaign finance. Our system is not set up in such a way that you can channel incentives to get politicians to act in a benevolent way. This isn't anything new, Alexis de Tocqueville could see this as early as the 1830s.

You're on to something.... now to get those public campaigns.... oh yeah, the parties have to AGREE on something or someone has to unilaterally disarm.... good luck with that....