Oh give me a break. If you take a look at voting records on controversial bills designed to make the average person's life harder, it's usually republicans voting for it and democrats against it, and vice versa if it's something that would make the average person's life better. Of course, SOPA was a significant exception, it had more dems voting for it than repubs.

Basically it's a question of "bad right-wing capitalist party" and "very bad ultra-right wing late stage capitalist party". One is bad because they're taking a bunch of corporate donations, the other one already wants you to be jailed, dead or in debt if you're not white, christian or straight enough, but ALSO takes all the corporate donations they can get.

You're right that it's rich vs poor not left vs right, but the thing is that the right generally sides with the rich way more than the poor. They're always for more corporate freedom and less consumer protections, etc. Of course the US democratic party isn't socialists - they only support SOME social programs, but overall are still capitalists. But it's still better than actively trying to destroy any chance of socialized healthcare, education, etc.

You might not be trying to do it on purpose, but the whole "both sides are the same thing" argument is an actual right-wing strategy to disenfranchise younger, less active voters who'd vote for left-wing politicians, because older people, more likely to vote right-wing, are much more reliable voters. There is a bit of truth to it, but it's nowhere near the whole truth.