Mitt Romney Presidential Campaign

[_Abyssinia]

Originally Posted by Pork Roll

We already are subjected to a national Walmartification. The democrats are the party of progressive ideas and the centralization of the culture of death. The GOP are the party of the wealthy and big business. They think it's great that Walmarts have spread from sea to shinning sea. Everything is justified as long as share holder value rises. They don't know what good really is. They reduce everything to profit and efficiency. They think invisible hands will fix everything if the government just backs off.

They, like the democrats, support pre-emptive strikes and the arming of rebels to the detrement of christians in the middle east. It's stupid and the church doesn't support this kind of garbage.

How conservatives can eagerly campaign for the king of Wall Street and the Mormon church who supported the bail-outs is beyond me.

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.

But in a broader measurement, the study also showed that of the 167 House districts where the median annual income was higher than the national median of $48,201, a slight majority, 84 districts, were represented by Democrats. Median means that half of all income earners make more than that level and half make less.

Mr. Franc's study also showed that contrary to the Democrats' tendency to define Republicans as the party of the rich, "the vast majority of unabashed conservative House members hail from profoundly middle-income districts."

"I just found the pattern across the board to be very interesting. That pattern shows the likelihood of electing a Democrat to the House is very closely correlated with how many wealthy households are in that district," Mr. Franc said in an interview with The Washington Times.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=711_1195846131

Wealthy Individuals Voted for Obama: CNN reported about election 2008: “High income voters — those who said they make at least $100,000 a year –went in Obama’s favor, 52 percent to 47 percent.”

Wealthy Counties Voted for Obama: American’s richest county, Loudoun County, Va., voted Obama 54-46, thus being more Democratic than the rest of Va. and the nation (which were both 53% Obama). Fairfax, Va., the nation’s second-wealthiest county, voted 60% Obama.

Wealthy States Voted for Obama: The three wealthiest states — Maryland, Connecticut, and New Jersey, all voted overwhelmingly for Obama.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politi...#ixzz1oZXy8dOV

Republican party is not the party of the wealthy

[Robert Bay]

MODERATOR NOTICE

Please charitably discuss the issues, not each other

Please do NOT campaign on the forums. You may charitably talk about the issues and the news, but try not to talk past each other. Don't campaign (repeating the same argument over and over again and constantly advocating a candidate and attacking another candidate). This is not a political site.

Also read the forum rules concerning the discussion of politics in my signature before posting.

[Pork Roll]

Is it Romney's energy proposals? More drilling and development of energy sources here in America to increase the supply and help lower the costs?

The price of energy, much like the economy is largely controlled by global forces. The bottom line is that we do not have readily availble the amount of oil necessary to meet demand in this country. There is no quick fix or easy answer. There are no "giant" oil fields on or offshore of Alaska that are waiting to be produced. They have to be discovered and the wildcat sucess ratio is about 20% or so and much less in frontier areas like in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. They have already drilled the biggest and best prospects in many cases and haven't discovered any commercial fields at this point.

But talk radio or the media mislead people into believing that there are vast resources untapped reserves and that it's all the governments fault for no development. It isn't true and it's always more complicated that right-wing talk radio spin.

[Robert Bay]

Threads over 1,000 posts are closed for technical reasons.

Thank you to all who contributed.