Replies to post #479150 on Tornado Alley (PROG)

[zab]

The Republicans represent the ultra rich, there 756 billionaires in America, and almost 23 million, millionaires. This is America, Capitalism, money and wealth is everywhere.

[fuagf]

B402, Yes, you have given more opinion than links about Dems representing cities and more wealthy counties, but yes some links. And their problem with more progressive income tax scales in states where they have most control. You have also been given much information on the fact it is the Democrats who support better health systems and SS and food stamp programs and higher minimum wages and a myriad of other social programs which support the non-rich. You can't only feed on one side of the equation.

"Sheesh, Ive post numerous links, how dems represent the rich...Dem cities, dems in power in states, selling off industry....New Fangled DAs loosening crime too much, out of control immigration at a time of inequity
P - The only ones that think the left hasn't moved too far left is the left....
P - Shame they didn't get back to the center, but hey, its tribalism now, no one is going to back down.....
P - So back to we have the same facts, just different opinions"

Seems to me maybe it's just because you feed off one side is why you say on one hand people in Europe and elsewhere are voting more for the far-right because the Dems have moved to far to the left, and on the other hand the Dems are the party of the rich because they have moved to far to the right. To me, again, it looks you constantly contradict yourself.

And yet again your mantra part, the Dems should get back to the center. You ignore the opinion that Obama had Dems at the center, rand you don't give one single example of how Dems have moved to the left, after Obama, under Biden. As a matter of fact all you do is give examples of how Dems have moved to the right rather than to the left. By your above "selling off industry" e.g.

So you have them moving to the right to become the party of the rich, and you have them moving too far to the left as the reason more are voting for the far-right in Europe.

You do a good job of confusing me, no wonder you are mixed up yourself and intend to vote, if you do, Republican.

[fuagf]

B402, See more disciplined, nuanced, and more insightful articles, and opinion -- You've hit on it. Seemed counterintuitive to me as well considering that the GDP disparities between Blue and Red states are the mirror image of the income inequality.

Gotta be wealth for there to be inequality.

Today, therefore, neither party represents the same types of places it did just 10 years ago. As such, the Democratic Party is now anchored in the nation’s booming, but highly unequal, metro areas, while the GOP relies on aging and economically stagnant manufacturing-reliant rural and exurban communities.

America has two economies—and they’re diverging fast
[...]
Where Republican areas of the country rely on lower-skill, lower-productivity “traditional” industries like manufacturing and resource extraction, Democratic, mostly urban districts contain large concentrations of the nation’s higher-skill, higher-tech professional and digital services.

Yet now comes another wrinkle to the story. Not only are red and blue America experiencing two different economies, but those economies are diverging fast.

In fact, radical change is transforming the two parties’ economies in real time. Which is a key takeaway of a new data analysis—published today—that we developed with the Wall Street Journal’s Aaron Zitner and Dante Chinni.

What do the new numbers show exactly?
[...]
With their output surging as a result of the big-city tilt of the decade’s “winner-take-most” economy, Democratic districts have seen their median household income soar in a decade—from $54,000 in 2008 to $61,000 in 2018. By contrast, the income level in Republican districts began slightly higher in 2008, but then declined from $55,000 to $53,000.

Underlying these changes have been eye-popping shifts in economic performance. Democratic-voting districts have seen their GDP per seat grow by a third since 2008, from $35.7 billion to $48.5 billion a seat, whereas Republican districts saw their output slightly decline from $33.2 billion to $32.6 billion.

Looking deeper, it’s clear that big shifts in industry geography and composition are driving the parties’ changes of identity. Look at the matrix of 10-year trends depicted here:

h/t blackhawks - https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=170172191

[janice shell]

how dems represent the rich...Dem cities, dems in power in states, selling off industry....New Fangled DAs loosening crime too much, out of control immigration at a time of inequity

So Dems have to be poor? Was FDR poor? Was JFK poor?