Rep. Patrick Kennedy said something particularly illuminating at a Young Democrat’s meeting.
We hear that Kennedy told the crowd: "I don’t need Bush’s tax cut. I have never worked a [bleeping] day in my life." With that he got the audience’s attention — the dropping-jaws kind. "He droned on and on, frequently mentioning how much better the candidates would sound the more we drank," a witness told us.
Indeed, that sums up the attitude of the current Democratic leadership. We’re rich, so we don’t need tax cuts. In fact, we can also pay for restrictive environmental regulations, higher medical costs, and all the other problems associated with maintaining a social welfare state to pay off our core constituency. If you can’t, well, too damn bad. You peons in flyover country with your antiquated notions of personal freedom and responsibility don’t matter. The people who have never worked a (bleeping) day in their lives are the ones running the Democratic Party. No wonder they have such little regard for the hard work of others.
It never ceases to be hilarious how right-wingers try to paint the Democratic Party as the party of the elite. The more affluent the household, the more Democratic their voting tendencies, you would have us believe. The Kennedys provide one example for you to base your analogy on, but you try to ignore the fact that for every Patrick Kennedy, there are ten Ken Lays and George W. Bushes.
It was pretty obvious that Kennedy’s statements were made in reference to the fact that he didn’t need or deserve a tax cut…despite the fact that Republicans were working tirelessly to make sure people like him got ANOTHER tax cut INSTEAD of the “flyover” people you refer to. How you were able to twist his comments into some attack on “personal responsibility” speaks volumes of your inability to comprehend that someone may actually support values where they aren’t necessarily the primary beneficiary. Given that the Republican party platform is all about “me, me, me, me, me”, I can see how Kennedy’s words would confuse you.
Actually, according to the 2000 elections data, more people in the top 20% income bracket voted for Gore than for Bush. By the numbers, it would seem that the super-rich do tend to vote Democratic.
Your numbers conflict with mine. The numbers I saw showed the top income quintile going heavily for Bush (about eight points) and the second quintile going slightly less for Bush….while the bottom three went for Gore. Feel free to prove me wrong if you have data you can cut and paste. You’re painting yourself into a corner with this argument though. If the Democratic worldview is to “soak the rich” to the point of devastating their livelihood, why is this group supporting Republicans? Perhaps they don’t perceive themselves as the tattered victims of their success that you do.
Unfortunately, the site with my election breakdown has gone 404. I’ll have to see if I have another copy of the figures somewhere.
The reason why the super-rich tend to vote Democratic is that they can afford to. If Warren Buffet lost $300,000 it wouldn’t make much difference to him. In fact, he benefits from increased government as he has the resources and the abilities to use loopholes to his advantage. The more regulation there is, the more opportunity he has to make this regulations favor his interests.
Where taxation really hits is what one Fortune magazine writer termed the HENRYs. (High Earners Not Rich Yet). These are the people who make middle to upper-middle incomes but still aren’t anywhere near rich. They are the ones who drive the economy, provide jobs, and take risks. They are also the ones who inevitably get socked with the Alternative Minimum Tax and other ridiculous tax policies. They aren’t like Warren Buffett – they can’t shield their incomes or move most of their assets to investment. Taxation increases hit them harder than any group. Notably, the HENRYs tend to be the core of the Republican constituency.
The CNN poll data is here: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/epolls/US/P000.html
What’s interesting is that the subset of those making over $100,000 did go for Bush by a fairly wide margin. (This category would include many of the people who would fall in the HENRY category.)
However, the top 4% who identified themselves as "upper class" went for Gore by a ratio of 56% to 39%. By this evidence, it seems that the upper middle class did support Bush in 2000, while those in the very topmost echelons of the income bracket tended to vote for Gore.
My assessment of the voting breakdown of the five quintiles appears to have been on target. As for the “upper class” numbers you present, I think it’s a misprint. You can see that the bottom of the graph shows the lower class voting block and has no information–zeroes across the board, which already presents one error in that particular chart. My guess is the 18-point margin for Gore was intended for the lower class voting block. It’s highly unlikely that individuals who earn over $100,000 and represent 15% of the population could go 11 points in favor of Bush, yet 4% of that same 15% block could go 18 points in favor of Gore. Every number I remember looking at showed that Bush’s numbers improved with each increasing income demographic.
The only people in the wealthiest 4% of Americans demographic who I could see voting for Gore would include Jewish entrepreneurs (who make up less than 5% of the voting population) and trial lawyers. The doctors, bankers and wealthy executives who form the wealthiest 4% of the population would be hard pressed to see Gore’s message as being more persuasive than Bush. I honestly can’t see how those numbers are possible and would have to see data from any source confirming their accuracy before I believed it.