Dems Quite Hypocritical on Wealth Redistribution

[Bro. Curtis]

when the burden fell on rich republicans they were all for it. Now, not so much.

Affluent Democrats nix radical redistribution

 

[Happy]

when the burden fell on rich republicans they were all for it. Now, not so much.

Affluent Democrats nix radical redistribution

Agree. They are skilled at giving the veneer smiling speech that tickles the ears of those who want to be dependents....
However, what they SAY, never equals what they DO.

Nancy Pelosi’s Life in the 0.1 Percent

 

[InTheLight]

when the burden fell on rich republicans they were all for it. Now, not so much.

Affluent Democrats nix radical redistribution

First sentence of the article:
Thomas Edsall, the longtime Washington Post reporter now writing on his New York Times blog, laments the increasing tendency of high-income Americans to vote Democratic.

So high income Americans are increasingly voting for Democrats.

Second sentence:
That leaves the Democrats with an increasingly affluent constituency, presumably unwilling (or less willing than others) to support redistributive policies like Bernie Sanders's proposal for higher tax rates on the affluent.

So Democrats are "presumably unwilling" to support redistributive policies, or "less willing" to support them. Not exactly a definitive hypothesis.

Article then states these higher income people voted for Hillary over Sanders. And Hillary proposed many higher taxes on the wealthy. And Democrats are the party of wealth distribution. And these high income people still vote Democratic.

So I'm missing the big deal here.

 

[Reynolds]

when the burden fell on rich republicans they were all for it. Now, not so much.

Affluent Democrats nix radical redistribution

Honestly, both parties have become quite hypocritical. Campaign rhetoric and post election actions rarely line up.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

First sentence of the article:
Thomas Edsall, the longtime Washington Post reporter now writing on his New York Times blog, laments the increasing tendency of high-income Americans to vote Democratic.

So high income Americans are increasingly voting for Democrats.

Second sentence:
That leaves the Democrats with an increasingly affluent constituency, presumably unwilling (or less willing than others) to support redistributive policies like Bernie Sanders's proposal for higher tax rates on the affluent.

So Democrats are "presumably unwilling" to support redistributive policies, or "less willing" to support them. Not exactly a definitive hypothesis.

Article then states these higher income people voted for Hillary over Sanders. And Hillary proposed many higher taxes on the wealthy. And Democrats are the party of wealth distribution. And these high income people still vote Democratic.

So I'm missing the big deal here.

Surprise surprise. And I'm missing the desire to explain it to you.

 

[Happy]

Honestly, both parties have become quite hypocritical. Campaign rhetoric and post election actions rarely line up.

A candidate who is positioned as a potential President can only speak on what they find as a detrimental issue for America / Americans and promise to do what they can to address such issue and work on it. They are not the legislative body, they are not dictators and they are not without obstacles that will oppose their every attempt to advance their addressing such identified issues. <--- And that applies to an potential President, regardless of "party".

Each campaign selects a "slogan" to give an overview of their standing.
Trump's was...."Make America Great Again"
Hilly's was...."Stronger Together".

Trump spoke of America ~ Hillary spoke of "her" supporters, since she had a list of nasty names to call Republicans, and directed her own "groupies" to ..."So just eliminate them from your thinking".
Clinton expresses regret for saying 'half' of Trump supporters are 'deplorables' - CNNPolitics.com

Now to the Point. Honestly the majority of Americans appear VERY ignorant of a Presidents JOB, and the LIMITS of what he is lawfully authorized to do.

 

[Reynolds]

A candidate who is positioned as a potential President can only speak on what they find as a detrimental issue for America / Americans and promise to do what they can to address such issue and work on it. They are not the legislative body, they are not dictators and they are not without obstacles that will oppose their every attempt to advance their addressing such identified issues. <--- And that applies to an potential President, regardless of "party".

Each campaign selects a "slogan" to give an overview of their standing.
Trump's was...."Make America Great Again"
Hilly's was...."Stronger Together".

Trump spoke of America ~ Hillary spoke of "her" supporters, since she had a list of nasty names to call Republicans, and directed her own "groupies" to ..."So just eliminate them from your thinking".
Clinton expresses regret for saying 'half' of Trump supporters are 'deplorables' - CNNPolitics.com

Now to the Point. Honestly the majority of Americans appear VERY ignorant of a Presidents JOB, and the LIMITS of what he is lawfully authorized to do.

I actually did not have The President in mind when I posted. I was specifically referencing both houses of Congress.

 

[InTheLight]

Surprise surprise. And I'm missing the desire to explain it to you.

Unnecessary. I know nothing sauce when I see it.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Bro. Curtis]

That you don't see it means absolutely nothing to me.