The Democrats!

Entire article can read at
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/...111230087/1002

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.

I wonder if they are the ones buying up all the Grand Banks?

Lu Powell wrote:
The Democrats!

Entire article can read at
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/...111230087/1002

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.

JimH wrote:
"Lu Powell" wrote in message
...
The Democrats!

Entire article can read at
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/...111230087/1002

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.



It is also the party of bigots/racists and the intolerant. If one looks at
Super Tuesday D voting results many are in the NE area of the country and
not in the southern States as usually stereotyped.



Did you read Harry's comment about Obama being a credit to his race?

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
JimH wrote:
"Lu Powell" wrote in message
...
The Democrats!

Entire article can read at
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/...111230087/1002


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.



It is also the party of bigots/racists and the intolerant. If one
looks at Super Tuesday D voting results many are in the NE area of the
country and not in the southern States as usually stereotyped.


Did you read Harry's comment about Obama being a credit to his race?


and someone that young blacks can use for a role model?

While Obama got a lot of black votes, he also got more votes from white
males than Hillary, and more votes from females under the age of 65 than
Hillary.

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:29:48 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
"Reggie is Here wrote:



and someone that young blacks can use for a role model?

While Obama got a lot of black votes, he also got more votes from white
males than Hillary, and more votes from females under the age of 65 than
Hillary.

Everybody is a racist to some degree. Obama probably less than most,
given his mixed heritage.
I saw this writer on C-Span this morning, and he had some interesting
insights - based on actual reporting - about the differences between
Hillary and Obama. Here's the article he mentioned.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?...or_v isionary

Make of it what you will.

--Vic

"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in
message . ..
JimH wrote:
"Lu Powell" wrote in message
...
The Democrats!

Entire article can read at
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/...111230087/1002

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.



It is also the party of bigots/racists and the intolerant. If one
looks at Super Tuesday D voting results many are in the NE area of
the country and not in the southern States as usually stereotyped.

Did you read Harry's comment about Obama being a credit to his race?


"A credit to his race"...is a racist statement. Next thing, Harry will
declare some of his best friends are Black. The Clintons want to credit
Obama's wins to the Black vote. Yeah, there's a slew of Black voters in
Idaho, Colorado, Kansas, etc.

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...


Everybody is a racist to some degree. Obama probably less than most,
given his mixed heritage.
I saw this writer on C-Span this morning, and he had some interesting
insights - based on actual reporting - about the differences between
Hillary and Obama. Here's the article he mentioned.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?...or_v isionary

Make of it what you will.

--Vic


Interesting and almost believable article until I got to the paragraph
outlining Bill Clinton's successes as president.
It offers "welfare reform" as one of two "success" examples, but neglects to
point out that the same Welfare Reform Act was submitted to him for
signature by a Republican congress *three* times. Clinton rejected it
twice, but the Republicans forced the issue by sending it back to him. The
third time worked when Clinton, at the advise of his senior advisors,
suggested he should accept it or risk serious public negative reaction.

But, now he takes credit for it.

Eisboch

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:29:48 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is
Here wrote:

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
JimH wrote:
"Lu Powell" wrote in message
...
The Democrats!

Entire article can read at
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/...111230087/1002


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.



It is also the party of bigots/racists and the intolerant. If one
looks at Super Tuesday D voting results many are in the NE area of the
country and not in the southern States as usually stereotyped.


Did you read Harry's comment about Obama being a credit to his race?


and someone that young blacks can use for a role model?

While Obama got a lot of black votes, he also got more votes from white
males than Hillary, and more votes from females under the age of 65 than
Hillary.

And next Tuesday, he's going to get two from retired, whites over the age
of 55.
--
John H

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 19:32:45 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Vic Smith" wrote in message
. ..


Everybody is a racist to some degree. Obama probably less than most,
given his mixed heritage.
I saw this writer on C-Span this morning, and he had some interesting
insights - based on actual reporting - about the differences between
Hillary and Obama. Here's the article he mentioned.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?...or_v isionary

Make of it what you will.

Interesting and almost believable article until I got to the paragraph
outlining Bill Clinton's successes as president.
It offers "welfare reform" as one of two "success" examples, but neglects
to
point out that the same Welfare Reform Act was submitted to him for
signature by a Republican congress *three* times. Clinton rejected it
twice, but the Republicans forced the issue by sending it back to him.
The
third time worked when Clinton, at the advise of his senior advisors,
suggested he should accept it or risk serious public negative reaction.

But, now he takes credit for it.

If Hillary is the candidate, it's going to be interesting to see how
the American public accepts another HillBilly presidency.

In particular, as a former President, he gets the same NIE as she
will.

If it is Hillary, Bill is going to be a huge issue in addition to the
"dynastic" properties of the election.

My opinion is that average America has had enough of the Imperial Bush
and Clinton families.


Unfortunately, there are no viable potentials that don't already have their
roots deeply planted in the corrupt, sickening WashDC club with membership
consisting of both parties.

Eisboch

On Feb 6, 7:59*pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in messagenews:44lkq31am7latsoovdbc5adh7mgu18jovk@4ax .com...





On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 19:32:45 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
. ..

Everybody is a racist to some degree. *Obama probably less than most,
given his mixed heritage.
I saw this writer on C-Span this morning, and he had some interesting
insights - based on actual reporting - about the differences between
Hillary and Obama. *Here's the article he mentioned.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?...ts_choice_mana....

Make of it what you will.

Interesting and almost believable article until I got to the paragraph
outlining Bill Clinton's successes as president.
It offers "welfare reform" as one of two "success" examples, but neglects
to
point out that the same Welfare Reform Act was submitted to him for
signature by a Republican congress *three* times. *Clinton rejected it
twice, but the Republicans forced the issue by sending it back to him.
The
third time worked when Clinton, at the advise of his senior advisors,
suggested he should accept it or risk serious public negative reaction.

But, now he takes credit for it.

If Hillary is the candidate, it's going to be interesting to see how
the American public accepts another HillBilly presidency.

In particular, as a former President, he gets the same NIE as she
will.

If it is Hillary, Bill is going to be a huge issue in addition to the
"dynastic" properties of the election.

My opinion is that average America has had enough of the Imperial Bush
and Clinton families.

Unfortunately, there are no viable potentials that don't already have their
roots deeply planted in the corrupt, sickening WashDC club with membership
consisting of both parties.

Eisboch- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Terry Bradshaw would make a good president, make Howie long VP just so
there would be some teeth in there...