On Feb 7, 6:51*pm, "John" wrote:
"Lu Powell" wrote in message

...





The Democrats!

Entire article can read at
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/...D=/20071123/NA....

Democrats like to define themselves as the party of poor and middle-income
Americans, but a new study says they now represent the majority of the
nation's wealthiest congressional districts.

In a state-by-state, district-by-district comparison of wealth
concentrations based on Internal Revenue Service income data, Michael
Franc, vice president of government relations at the Heritage Foundation,
found that the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional
jurisdictions were represented by Democrats.

He also found that more than half of the wealthiest households were
concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats hold both Senate seats.

"If you take the wealthiest one-third of the 435 congressional districts,
we found that the Democrats represent about 58 percent of those
jurisdictions," Mr. Franc said.

A key measure of each district's wealth was the number of single-filer
taxpayers earning more than $100,000 a year and married couples filing
jointly who earn more than $200,000 annually, he said.

Couple of MAJOR point
The Washington times is about as conservative as they come - it will print
anything that paints democrats in a biased light but never even mentioned
how poorly the war in Iraq was going - or that there was even a different
opinion about it.

$200,000 per year IS NOT rich - that is simply the Educated workers!!! *No
surprise that the educated are more critical of republican lies and
rhetoric. * See the first statement about WashTimes - any coincidence that
they would draw the income line at 200K to make a point?

The rich republican supporters that you hear about are the top 5% in income
who coincidently control about 40% of all the wealth in the country....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Can't have it both ways...

On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 13:06:05 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 04:46:25 -0800 (PST),
wrote:


The rich republican supporters that you hear about are the top 5% in income
who coincidently control about 40% of all the wealth in the country....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Can't have it both ways...

1 - 40% of the wealth is held by less than 1% of the population.
Compared to years past when 70% of the nations wealth was held by .5%
of the population, I'd say that was an improvement.

2 - ALL of the Presidential candidates live in homes that are worth
more than 1.5 million dollars.

3 - 80% of Senators live in homes valued more than 1 million dollars.

4 - 73% of all Representatives live in homes valued more than
$750,000.

Think about that.

Public servants my ass.

Tom, around here, $750 is not an expensive house at all. Last year my hovel
was close to that on Zillow. It's down now, but still...
--
John H

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 04:46:25 -0800 (PST),
wrote:


The rich republican supporters that you hear about are the top 5% in
income
who coincidently control about 40% of all the wealth in the country....-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Can't have it both ways...

1 - 40% of the wealth is held by less than 1% of the population.
Compared to years past when 70% of the nations wealth was held by .5%
of the population, I'd say that was an improvement.

2 - ALL of the Presidential candidates live in homes that are worth
more than 1.5 million dollars.

3 - 80% of Senators live in homes valued more than 1 million dollars.

4 - 73% of all Representatives live in homes valued more than
$750,000.

Think about that.

Public servants my ass.

Why those self serving money grubbing assholes.

On Feb 8, 5:06�am, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 04:46:25 -0800 (PST),

wrote:
The rich republican supporters that you hear about are the top 5% in income
who coincidently control about 40% of all the wealth in the country....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Can't have it both ways...

1 - 40% of the wealth is held by less than 1% of the population.
Compared to years past when 70% of the nations wealth was held by .5%
of the population, I'd say that was an improvement.

2 - ALL of the Presidential candidates live in homes that are worth
more than 1.5 million dollars.

3 - 80% of Senators live in homes valued more than 1 million dollars.

4 - 73% of all Representatives live in homes valued more than
$750,000.

Think about that.

Public servants my ass.

What does the value of real estate in a community have to do with
whether or not people living in a moderately priced home are good
public servants? Congresspeople are proportionate, urban areas where a
lot of people live have more than rural areas where almost nobody
lives. Desirable neighborhoods in highly populated areas will carrry
price tags in the high six-figure range and on up into seven-figures
in many communitites.

I noticed that at least in one city in CT, the average family income
was $113,000 in 2005. Would you suggest that the residents try to
elect a warehouse laborer earning $40,000 a year instead of choosing
from among folks with a financial background similar to the majority
of folks he or she will represent? Easiest guy in the world to bribe
would be somebody who moves from a less than average wage job to the
$150k (or whatever, plus perks) congressmen make today.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/money...ghincomes.html

In that same community in CT, the average home sold for $1.1mm in
2005.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/money...iceyhomes.html

Pointing out that somebody lives in a $750k house, in a surprisingly
high number of cities, will cause people to react with a "so
what?" :-)

On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 09:19:30 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Feb 8, 5:06?am, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 04:46:25 -0800 (PST),

wrote:
The rich republican supporters that you hear about are the top 5% in income
who coincidently control about 40% of all the wealth in the country....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Can't have it both ways...

1 - 40% of the wealth is held by less than 1% of the population.
Compared to years past when 70% of the nations wealth was held by .5%
of the population, I'd say that was an improvement.

2 - ALL of the Presidential candidates live in homes that are worth
more than 1.5 million dollars.

3 - 80% of Senators live in homes valued more than 1 million dollars.

4 - 73% of all Representatives live in homes valued more than
$750,000.

Think about that.

Public servants my ass.

What does the value of real estate in a community have to do with
whether or not people living in a moderately priced home are good
public servants? Congresspeople are proportionate, urban areas where a
lot of people live have more than rural areas where almost nobody
lives. Desirable neighborhoods in highly populated areas will carrry
price tags in the high six-figure range and on up into seven-figures
in many communitites.

I noticed that at least in one city in CT, the average family income
was $113,000 in 2005. Would you suggest that the residents try to
elect a warehouse laborer earning $40,000 a year instead of choosing
from among folks with a financial background similar to the majority
of folks he or she will represent? Easiest guy in the world to bribe
would be somebody who moves from a less than average wage job to the
$150k (or whatever, plus perks) congressmen make today.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/money...ghincomes.html

In that same community in CT, the average home sold for $1.1mm in
2005.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/money...iceyhomes.html

Pointing out that somebody lives in a $750k house, in a surprisingly
high number of cities, will cause people to react with a "so
what?" :-)

Chuck, I think there was a little of the tongue in cheek there.
--
John H

On Feb 8, 5:06�am, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

1 - 40% of the wealth is held by less than 1% of the population.
Compared to years past when 70% of the nations wealth was held by .5%
of the population, I'd say that was an improvement.

Attn: All employees.
Last week, 99% of our workforce had to go home home sick due to
chemical poisoning. This week, only 96% of our workforce suffered
similar reactions. Conditions at this plant are definitely
improving! :-)

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

1 - 40% of the wealth is held by less than 1% of the population.
Compared to years past when 70% of the nations wealth was held by .5%
of the population, I'd say that was an improvement.

How many years past?

Share of wealth held by the Bottom 99% and Top 1% in the
United States, 1922-1998.

Bottom 99% Top 1 %
1922 63.3% 36.7%
1929 55.8% 44.2%
1933 66.7% 33.3%
1939 63.6% 36.4%
1945 70.2% 29.8%
1949 72.9% 27.1%
1953 68.8% 31.2%
1962 68.2% 31.8%
1965 65.6% 34.4%
1969 68.9% 31.1%
1972 70.9% 29.1%
1976 80.1% 19.9%
1979 79.5% 20.5%
1981 75.2% 24.8%
1983 69.1% 30.9%
1986 68.1% 31.9%
1989 64.3% 35.7%
1992 62.8% 37.2%
1995 61.5% 38.5%
1998 61.9% 38.1%