Skip to content

Ah the irony of presidential politics

October 3, 2012

Ok, So let’s get this straight. The top of the income scale has done just fine under President Obama, the president who bailed out their banks and auto companies. His administration has kept taxes at 50-year lows for the wealthy. The Dow has come roaring back under his administration. Yet, the one-percent, or two-percent, or ten-percent or whatever you think is the top income cutoff express little but contempt for the president. These people, who have done so well under his tenure, are voting against him and for Mitt Romney.

The middle and lower end of the U.S. income spectrum has, for the most part, borne the burden of the foundering economy. It is their jobs that have vanished, their children who can’t pay back their college loans or have been priced out of higher education. But these folks, the 47 percent or whatever you wish to label them, are willing to vote to give Obama a second term.

Then there are the moocher or taker states, the ones that receive more federal money than they generate in federal taxes. These are mostly the red states of the Old Confederacy. These people are supported by the blue states of the two coasts and the upper Great Lakes, the states that send more tax money to Washington, D.C. than they get back in federal benefits. This is the major redistribution of the tax system. So polls show that the voters of the red, moocher or taker states are voting for Romney and the provider or maker states are going for Obama. Is that about it?

7 Comments leave one →
  1. October 3, 2012 9:43 pm

    Ah-yup. That just about sums it up!

  2. Phil West permalink
    October 3, 2012 11:19 pm

    Thoughtful and accurate observations, Scott. Thank you.

  3. Craig O'Connor permalink
    October 4, 2012 12:09 pm

    The ones who should show contempt for Obama are the rest of us – he has given lip service to being on our side while let the bankers and the generals do whatever they want. He’s better than Romney, sure – but that’s a low, low standard to judge him by. He appoints the head of GE to his jobs task force, he runs an illegal drone war across the globe, and signs a give-away “settlement” with the mortgages companies who have destroyed the lives of millions.Time to stop settling.

  4. October 4, 2012 5:10 pm

    Interesting read. I was watching with some fascination from this side of the pond (2am start, ugh!) and thought that Mitt Romney came across ‘presidentially’ and that Barack Obama had none of his 2008 fight about him: with the possible exception of the President’s barbed comment about Romney’s difficulties in sitting down on Day 1 with Democrats at the same time as trying to dismantle Obamacare.

    I’m going to be following from a British perspective on my blog: have a look at my thoughts ahead of last night’s debate: @tommygilchrist: Change we (still) believe in? http://t.co/keNP1iqF

  5. October 4, 2012 5:29 pm

    I don’t think it is fair to blame all of the above on the Obama administration. The current Congress is much more to blame for refusing to raise the debt ceiling and for refusing to tax the rich.
    Remember we are voting for a Congress too. Vote the Tea Party out and the Obama administration can work.

  6. October 4, 2012 5:45 pm

    Thanks all!

  7. Mister Guy permalink
    October 9, 2012 12:15 am

    “But these folks, the 47 percent or whatever you wish to label them, are willing to vote to give Obama a second term.”

    One of the ironic parts of this kind of nonsense is that it’s actually Romney who’s “floor” in terms of a percentage of Americans that will likely vote for him is around 47-48% (based on an analysis of past, modern Presidential contests with one or more Third Party candidates) & President Obama’s “floor” of support is more like 48-49% (basically his approval rating with the general public).

    “Then there are the moocher or taker states, the ones that receive more federal money than they generate in federal taxes. These are mostly the red states of the Old Confederacy. These people are supported by the blue states of the two coasts and the upper Great Lakes, the states that send more tax money to Washington, D.C. than they get back in federal benefits.”

    The states that consistently take more from the feds then the give in taxes are AK, HI, MT, WY, ND, SD, NM, AZ, LA, MS, AL, SC, KY, WV, VA, VT ME & DC (technically not a state), or only around 15% of the USA’s population. The states that give more to the feds than they get back are WA, OR, CA, NV, CO, TX, FL, GA, NC, MN, WI, MI, IL, IN, OH, NY, NJ, DE, NH, MA, CT & RI, or around 68% of the USA’s population. Most of the states than get more from the feds than they give are small (in terms of population), rural states, and basically all of the big states (in terms of population) are givers more than takers. If one wants to change this, then one actually needs to figure out how to improve the economies of small, rural U.S. states significantly, which isn’t an easy task.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: