Wealthy people need representation too...

[kentuck]

And the Democratic Party should open its doors to the wealthy just as wide as they do for the common folks. Right? In my opinion, we should not. We should be a Party that represents, first of all, those that are most vulnerable in our society and those that need representation. We should represent those that have worked the hardest to build up this country, yet find themselves in their later years without any healthcare, no retirement, and malnourished from lack of food.

The wealthy will take care of themselves. They will have healthcare and caviar. They will have no problems in their retirements. They will have no problems paying for the best education.

We should be a Party that represents the interests of children and minorities and the poor. We should represent the common folks of the middle class. Our goal should always be to create a larger middle class - not an elite upper class and a lower dependent class.

Does that mean we do not welcome wealthy people into our Party? No, not at all. However, they join our Party with the knowledge that we will not pass legislation to enrich them even further. That is the job of the Republican Party.

Perhaps we need to re-think what our Party stands for and what it should stand for? We need to stand up for those folks that work hard every day and go further and further in the hole. We need to study income distributions from labor. We need to make sure no Americans go to bed hungry or homeless. We need to educate our young folks in the best schools. We need to ask everyone to pay their fair share of taxes. We need to defend our own shores before we send our troops nonchalantly to die in the sands of the Middle East. Sometimes I think our Party does not know what it stands for or what it should stand for?

[kwolf68]

1. Well I dont know

There are wealthy scoundrels and wealthy people who do A LOT for mankind.

We are a big tent party and having all different people in it is why its a great party. I want rich people in our party, honest rich people who understand that progressive taxation is something we strongly believe in. If I was wealthy I'd have no problem at all paying a greater share than the poor person or middle class person. Because afterall, a wealthy person has more of a chance to enjoy the spoils of this nation than does a poor person.

To quote a favorite singer of mine, "Today you are more free than ever to do anything you want, provided you can pay for it."

Still, we should not become an anti-rich party with beacon being one of class-warfare. We SHOULD be the party of the powerless, that without voice, those without priviledge, but should not shun like-minded people of great wealth.

I guess we can just kick Bobby Kennedy Jr, Ted Kennedy, Ned LaMont, Mark Warner, Dave Corzine, etc...out the party as well.

[kentuck]

2. I never suggested we kick anyone out of the Party..

But the people you mentioned are not begging for more taxcuts, as far as I know?

[rfranklin]

3. You become the enemy of the rich just by speaking up for...

the poor, the downtrodden, the forgotten--which at this juncture seems to include everyone who has an income of less than $500,000 a year. Most wealthy people live in constant fear that their "assets" will be taken by taxation, lawyers, relatives, and just about everyone else on the planet.

[sui generis]

4. just the same, not everyone who has money is opposed

to paying taxes. If you alienate people using income or net worth as criteria, you also alienate everybody who believes they can "escape" the wider middle class, and there are a lot of those deluded folks out there who vote for tax cuts because they believe they might win the lotto next week.

A lot of the derision that republicans have, especially lower income republicans, comes from viewing the democratic party as a party of the poor, and by their definition of poor, of people who deserve to be poor for being: liberal, gay, elderly, not republican, etc.

I don't think we can really use the words "inclusive" in a political party because it implies that there is a decision-making middle controlling access to the party. As a gay person, when I hear the democrats say they're "inclusive", I say of what. I'm going to be a democrat whether anybody includes me or not based on message and my personal values. The same thing is going to hold true for people of means - and if we villify them and believe we can do without them then I'm not sure it's a party I want to have anything to do with. Everybody has to be treated fairly and equally, without a test for their income or net worth.

[Sinti]

5. Wealth is not the problem - it's a good thing

I would wish it upon each and every one of you. The problem is usury - and an unwillingness to take responsibility for our shared circumstance, our shared problems, and shared future. The problem is when fortunate people don't give a damn about anyone but themselves, and would keep the less fortunate under their well-heeled feet, IMO.

[kentuck]

6. True...

However, just as you cannot worship two gods, I don't think it is possible to represent both the wealthy and the common folks at the same time because their interests tend to run in opposition to each other, at least in respect to those the Republican Party professes to represent. We need to make a choice, in my opinion. Otherwise, we end up with representatives in our own Party that will vote for bankruptcy legislation that benefits the wealthy banks over the common people who should never have had the credit card in the first place. But they did not address that issue at all...

[Sinti]

7. Very good point. I think they have to also stop representing corps

as if they were people. Corporations, by definition, have no soul, no conscience, their only obligation is to the bottom line. They don't deserve the same rights as flesh and blood individuals. Yes, they are made up of investors, but those investors don't have to take any responsibility for the corp's behavior, as a regular person would if they did the same thing. We need to evolve, in a sense, to understand that we are support human beings, the average working joe, if you will, and stop trying to play the middle.

[Greyhound]

10. I going to try to say this very nicely. You may "wish" wealth upon

each and every one of us, but the reality is that for one person to become "rich", hundreds of others must be deprived. Every billionaire takes from thousands, if not millions, of other deprived, mostly helpless people.

There is no way around it. I'm sure that you have already though of several "victimless" roads to wealth, but if you honestly look deeper you will see that in every case, somebody somewhere does without or dies to make it possible. This is the BIG LIE we tell ourselves to assuage the guilt we would feel if we ever had to confront those we have stolen from.

[Sinti]

11. Apparently I view "wealthy" differently

You're absolutely correct, for people to be obscenely rich many others must suffer and die of lack.

In my view, however, there is much more than enough to go around on the planet. Everything we need to live well reproduces itself, if cared for properly - the quantity is nearly infinite. The problem is there are a handful who much much more than they can use, and somehow they have convinced the rest of us that they should be looked up to. I'm simply defining wealth as having plenty, and being comfortable and secure, not as the guy who seeing four men and four apples snatches up all four of those apples and demands that the other three men work for a sliver of one. :)

[auburnblu]

12. Just because JFK has five houses

Don't hate him. He needs those houses.

[Sinti]

15. He doesn't need all those damn houses

He may have done a lot of good for folks, but nobody needs 5 houses - and yes, people do go homeless and hungry because others (some may be well meaning others) have far too much. :)

[Mountainman]

8. There are many wealthy people who have the same values we do.

To make a blanket statement about a class of people is not what I think anyone should do. Wealthy people are not enemies of the poor. Some may be but who will fund our think tanks and who will support our causes when we can't get enough money together? We should not turn out people because they are wealthier than we are.

[Vinca]

9. We need the wealthy, too!

Wealthy people get things done because they have the resources (Lamont campaign). Compassionate wealthy people have good ideas for helping those less fortunate than themselves. It's not the wealth that matters, it's the person.

[jrd200x]

13. Ideas like this will KILL the Democratic Party

What's with all the hatred for wealthy people. Many of those who are wealthy are that way because of hard work - nothing more. They have the same core values as all the other Democrats. How can you make such a statement like "In my opinion, we should not?" What does wealth have to do with anything?

The party isn't for people who only need help. It's, at least in part, a party that cares about helping people. And a lot of those need the help - but certainly there's room for those people who want to help others.

Your kind of thinking is dangerous to the party and will cause nothing but internal strife.

[kentuck]

17. I think it is your capitalist indoctrination that is dangerous....

to the Party and every single American, for that matter. Capital would not exist if not for labor. If capital overwhelms the labor part of the equation, we are not democrats to defend such a practice. Maybe Democrats but not democrats...

[jrd200x]

18. Huh? Now you're scaring me. I don't mean this as an insult but

you don't seem to me to be a Democrat at all. You seem more like a communist. I don't mean in to be derogatory at all. Your words and reactions do sound like you would prefer a third party - not the Democratic Party.

[kentuck]

22. Good! It sounds like you need to be scared just a bit...

Big Business and support and defense of the wealthy is not in the interest of the Democratic Party. This will be the demise of the Democratic Party as you have known it. We do not need two Republican Parties.

[Greyhound]

30. The second sentence of your reply is one of the foremost BIG LIES

we are indoctrinated with from the moment we are born, and continues to be drummed into us every day of our lives. There is no such thing, it is impossible, to become wealthy by "working hard". The only way to accumulate wealth is to deprive others.

Now, I know you will recoil at the very thought I've stated, so prove me wrong and give me an example of how one person becomes rich through "hard work".

[bvar22]

14. My sig line says it all.

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

:dem:

[jrd200x]

19. There is no room for ANYONE who excludues ANYONE

including the wealthy, the jews, the catholics, the evangelicals, or anyone else that gets regularly insulted, beaten up, and harrassed on this board.

[kentuck]

23. Just how do you define "exclusion"???

Look who is being "excluded" from healthcare today? Why do you think that is??

[frankly_fedup2]

16. Unless you are wealthy, you cannot even get elected to public

office. Also, how many are lawyers; especially on the right. They bitch and whine about trial lawyers and if it were not for James Baker, a trial lawyer, Dumbya would have never been selected.

I'm tired of worrying week-to-week, juggling everything so it is paid on time?

I am in awe of people that get paid millions of dollars just to act for 3 minutes in a movie or play 40 basketball games and get a $250 million contract. These people were blessed with talent in one way or another or good looks and perfect bodies.

Those of use that aren't blessed with a bankable talent, do without, and that just isn't right to me. I suppose that is more of a Socialist way of thinking.

The rich, even though they will not need their Social Security check; however, it will be deposited and they will expect it to be there every month.

The famous and rich give to the well-known charities that help large groups of people. God forbid that anyone look at individuals and what they are going through. There is no such thing as a charity for one. (okay, you freepers can add the "whine" in here before posting this on your "Must be on Welfare" board). Truth is, we live below the poverty level; however, we make too much for assistance. Working two jobs full time as well. (not me personally but I know some people who are).

[jrd200x]

20. Not True! Many State Reps and state officials are not rich

They walk my neighborhood and I can tell you, they're not rich.

A new Rep in the US congress isn't rich either. Many of them got raises to come to D.C. and now they have to keep two houses.

[jrd200x]

21. Class Warfare is a Cancer on the Party. STOP IT!

The Repubs do it all the time - and now we're eating our young too.

Don't any of you people want to WIN an election someday?

[kentuck]

24. Spoken like a true capitalist...

Are you a capitalist?

[Solon]

25. For years, class warfare has been a one sided offensive...

of the rich waging war against the poor. I say its time for the poor to fight back!

[theanarch]

26. when they start paying their fair share of the taxes...

...then they can have all the representation they want. Until then, "no representation without taxation".

[AZBlue]

27. Last I checked the Dem Party represented and welcomed ALL!

Unless you know of some other Democratic Party - one which I don't want anything to do with. I totally agree with your goals for the party, what specific programs to focus on - but I don't agree with excluding anyone. Ever. There are many wealthy in the Dem Party and they do want to better the lives of the underprivileged - don't stereotype or prejudge them just because they have money.

[kentuck]

28. Do you think the wealthy should pay more in taxes?

Just how progressive of a tax rate should we have? Or do you think we should have a flat rate? If you think the wealthy shold pay more, aren't you automatically "excluding" some from membership in the Democratic Party? Won't they simply go to the Republican Party if you say you are going to raise their rates for the common good? Or is the thought of the common good now anathema to most Democrats??

[AZBlue]

31. Of course they should. But don't assume they don't feel that way.

I personally know three multi-millionaires here in Arizona alone that feel they should pay more in taxes as well! And those are just the ones I know well enough to have discussed finance and politics, so I'm sure they aren't the only ones. You're making the assumption that just because they have money that they are only out for themselves, damn everyone else, and that's an incorrect assumption to make.

[kick_them_hard]

29. So are you saying Lamont

should not have run and won the nomination for the Democratic Party because he has money? Get a life! There are tons of people that are rich and are Democrats. You push those people out and we have no money coming in for elections.

[Maine-ah]

32. 40 of 100 senators are millionaires.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/13/senators.finances/index.html