Obama Wins the Wealthy Vote

[thrasher]

The 2012 presidential election often focused on class warfare with Republicans seemingly in the wealthy/upper class corner, and the Democrats in the middle/low class corner. That said, I found it very interesting that President Obama actually won the popular vote in eight out of ten of the wealthiest counties in the United States. What's up with that?



The whole article is here:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama-...154837437.html

Comments?

[Fred1369]

Yep, heard that on Glen Beck Thursday.

[Casey0211]

Originally Posted by thrasher

The 2012 presidential election often focused on class warfare with Republicans seemingly in the wealthy/upper class corner, and the Democrats in the middle/low class corner. That said, I found it very interesting that President Obama actually won the popular vote in eight out of ten of the wealthiest counties in the United States. What's up with that?



The whole article is here:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama-...154837437.html

Comments?

The "class warfare" complaint was always a BS proposition created by Fox News on behalf of the Republican party. I think that most wealthy people actually are responsible citizens who care about the general welfare of the country. In fact, I'll bet that most of the GOP support is from less-wealthy whites who've been bamboozled into believing the GOP cares about their well-being, despite all the evidence to the contrary. I believe it's a kind of economic Stockholm Syndrome, where these people have been screwed so hard for so long they've learned to love their oppressors

[Uncle Salty]

Taxes should be raised immediately but not to the Clinton era levels. I suggest rolling them back to the Tax Reform Act of 1964. We must get this economy moving again.

[Casey0211]

Originally Posted by Uncle Salty

Taxes should be raised immediately but not to the Clinton era levels. I suggest rolling them back to the Tax Reform Act of 1964. We must get this economy moving again.

To a 70 percent top rate? If you're serious, this is the Republican problem in a nutshell. They're like children who scream "go ahead, take it all," when they can't get their way over some minor amount.

[Michael Psycle]

I'm not surprised. I live just a few miles from Marin County (#3 on the list). Nice place to live with good people there.

[Uncle Salty]

I don't speak for republicans and I didn't vote for Romyan. Your getting confused. I just think we should do what the democrats want for a change.

[Michael Psycle]

Originally Posted by Uncle Salty

Taxes should be raised immediately but not to the Clinton era levels. I suggest rolling them back to the Tax Reform Act of 1964. We must get this economy moving again.

For those of us who like myself do not remember the details of the Tax Reform Act of 1964, please tell us what the impact of this would mean regarding tax rates for different levels of income.

[Casey0211]

Originally Posted by Michael Psycle

For those of us who like myself do not remember the details of the Tax Reform Act of 1964, please tell us what the impact of this would mean regarding tax rates for different levels of income.

I don't remember the details, either. But the top rate back then used to be something like 90 percent, which was lowered to 70 percent. I think the poster is just being churlish about any proposal to raise taxes, however minor the proposal may be.

[Uncle Salty]

In this forum I have said (several times) that I don't see any way to begin to balance the budget at the current level of taxation. It is true that raising taxes to Clinton era levels WILL NOT bring enough revenue to make a dent in balancing our spending. I just suggested raising taxes back to the "Kennedy tax cut" levels as a way to help balance the budget. Now I'm churlish.

[Casey0211]

Originally Posted by Uncle Salty

In this forum I have said (several times) that I don't see any way to begin to balance the budget at the current level of taxation. It is true that raising taxes to Clinton era levels WILL NOT bring enough revenue to make a dent in balancing our spending. I just suggested raising taxes back to the "Kennedy tax cut" levels as a way to help balance the budget. Now I'm churlish.

I apologize, Salty. I didn't realize you were serious. You're obviously much more of a pinko that I am.

[Uncle Salty]

If our nation cannot reduce it's spending in a major way, we must raise tax rates drastically. If we continue to spend $1 trillion more than our revenues every year, that is placing us in more peril than taxing the hell out of us. I'm not a pinko but in our current political state, we're not making any headway. If taxing our way to prosperity is the democrats plan, I say let us begin. Let us get it over with and move on. edit: since the wealthiest counties in the US voted for Obama, they shouldn't be opposed to more taxes.

[Casey0211]

Originally Posted by Uncle Salty

If our nation cannot reduce it's spending in a major way, we must raise tax rates drastically. If we continue to spend $1 trillion more than our revenues every year, that is placing us in more peril than taxing the hell out of us. I'm not a pinko but in our current political state, we're not making any headway. If taxing our way to prosperity is the democrats plan, I say let us begin. Let us get it over with and move on. edit: since the wealthiest counties in the US voted for Obama, they shouldn't be opposed to more taxes.

Once again, the terms of the debate are twisted to reflect the Right Wing obsessive anti-tax narrative. No one is advocating taxing ourselves out of the deficit and ultimately the debt. Serious spending cuts also need to be made. Think of it as a family that cuts its spending, with the breadwinner taking a second job to boot. Happens all the time, all across America, when the bills pile up. That's what we need to do here. And it requires bi-partisanship.

[Uncle Salty]

Originally Posted by Casey0211

Once again, the terms of the debate are twisted to reflect the Right Wing obsessive anti-tax narrative. No one is advocating taxing ourselves out of the deficit and ultimately the debt. Serious spending cuts also need to be made. Think of it as a family that cuts its spending, with the breadwinner taking a second job to boot. Happens all the time, all across America, when the bills pile up. That's what we need to do here. And it requires bi-partisanship.

The tax increases that democrats suggest are a drop in the bucket. The spending cuts that have been suggested are minimal at best compared to the problem. They can't even agree on solutions that won't come close to solving the problem. Bi-partisanship? Forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

[guydoc77]

But Casey, you have to also agree that everyone (probably including yourself?) is for spending cuts as long as THEIR piece of the pie doesn't shrink. Therein lies the problem. Therein lies the paralysis in both parties. Therein lies a substantial portion of the "fear mongering" used by BOTH parties during any recent campaign. Therein lies the meat of lobbying.

I'm on record on this forum stating that, as long as there were across the board, substantial spending cuts, cuts that will hurt everybody at least a little, I'm all for paying more in taxes, and, since my income is largely dependent on one of the entitlement programs (Medicare), willing to take a pay cut. Right now, with essentially uncontrolled spending by BOTH parties in recent years, I'm not for paying more than my present roughly 50% of my income in various taxes. Why would I be? Seriously. Your analogy is a good one. But, the behavior demonstrated by both parties over the last 20-30 years is to ask for more of my money in various taxes, many of them "hidden", and not cut spending in any meaningful fashion. In fact, to score political points and retain power, they increase spending.

If it cannot be acknowledged by BOTH parties that the present level of spending on "entitlement programs" cannot be sustained, regardless of the tax rate, then no progress will be made. And yes, that includes Medicare spending, including MY "reimbursement" level. I will gladly take a cut in pay AND pay more in taxes IF there light at the end of the tunnel is visible. But, in my case, to single me (doctors in general) out as fraudulent, and the sole reason Medicare is broke, isn't going to fly with me. It may score significant political points with the sheeple but it DOESN'T solve the problem at hand. In reality,Doc reimbursement represents only a small fraction of total Medicare expenditure. I will get the exact percentage if you like but I don't want to put an erroneous figure on here. If you accept this though, and please do, the implications in the case of Medicare are obvious. Cutting Medicare will simply have to mean a sea change in medical care for elderly. It will have to. And we all know how both parties have used that against each other. And Medicare is only one of these programs. Imagine the sea change required in all of these programs. I simply do not think that any politician in either party has the balls to do this. So, no, I'm not eager to pay a higher rate in taxes presently. Without associated real spending cuts, those higher tax rates, largely, become nothing more than symbolism