posted on Jul, 24 2003 @ 03:30 PM
I would beg to differ who the elitist are and who they dole out the millions for....
Washington Times Op-Ed: The Richest 1%
Dateline: December 18, 2002
Headline: The richest 1 percent
Byline: The Washington Times
So much for Republicans being the party of the wealthy. According to a new study by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, that moniker more
appropriately belongs to the Democrats. "Republicans raised more than Democrats from individuals who contributed small and medium amounts of money
during the 2002 election cycle," the report notes, "but Democrats far outpaced Republicans among deep-pocketed givers." Among donors who gave more
than $200 but less than $1,000, Republicans enjoyed a substantial $68 million to $44 million edge over Democrats. The margin was closer among those
individuals who gave $1,000 or more: The GOP took in $317 million, compared to the Democrats' $307 million.
But among the fabulously wealthy, the Democrats cleaned house. Donors of $10,000 or more gave $140 million to Democrats, while only $111 million went
to Republicans. Among those individuals who gave $100,000 or more, the Democrats raised $72 million compared to the Republicans' $34 million. And
when it comes to the millionaires' club - those kicking in $1 million or more - the Democratic Party skunked the GOP, $36 million to $3 million.
Needless to say, despite the near-parity in overall amounts - $384 million to the Republicans vs. $350 million to the Democrats - the number of
individual donors to the GOP exceeded those to the Democratic Party by more than 40 percent.
In other words, in 2002 a select group of bigwigs dumped big money into Democratic causes, while a broad base of folks donated respectable [but not
overwhelming] amounts to Republican candidates. That goes a long way toward explaining the Democrats' shallow support in the midterm elections, and
should give an indication of which party's agenda has been hijacked by the big money-men.
But it also sheds light on the president's first round of tax cuts - arguably the highest-profile domestic referendum in the midterm elections. We
can't help but notice that only those who are so stinking rich that money doesn't matter supported the Democrats' opposition to tax cuts.
Meanwhile, the many more who form the backbone of America's economy supported the Republicans. As the White House and congressional Republicans
prepare a new tax package, we hope they bear that in mind. And just to show that there are no hard feelings, we'll still support tax cuts for the
limousine liberals. With all that extra change in their pockets, maybe they'll put it to more productive uses than propping up the rejected policies
of the Democratic Party.
That should answer all your allegations from my concern for the American middle class of which I am a member to my explaination of why I think
elitist have taken control of this party. The old have vs have nots class warfare is simply been used to promote these false accusations.
"You can call yourself whatever you please but without the fire burning in your heart for REAL reform of the elitist status quo and toppling once
and for all the religious-politico machine, your just a repugnant in sheeps clothing to me. "
Yes, lets please reform from the elitist status quo..and I could give a damn what I am to you. I have a clear understanding of the Constitution and
what this country should be and have no need for advice from some highschool drop-out movie-star elitist.
"A return to what the founding fathers intended with a real and true separation of church & state is the only way to have real govt by & for ALL
the people!! "
Yeah, we all know the founding fathers weren't men of reverence to God don't we. That separation of Church and State has been taken so far out of
its original intended context it isn't funny anymore.
[Edited on 24-7-2003 by astrocreep]