GOP needs to remember that folks making over $250,000 voted for Barack Obama!

[FrenchieCat]

So they knew the Bush tax cuts repeal were coming.

Michelle Behnard can kiss my immigrant yellow ass! :eyes:

In the aftermath of the 2008 presidential election, exit polls showed that 52 percent of voters who make $250,000 a year or more voted for Barack Obama.

In a recent article for Slate and Newsweek, Daniel Gross pointed out that in doing so, those affluent voters went against their economic self-interest, since Mr. Obama is likely to raise their taxes.

This is unusual. As Paul Krugman argued in a blog post last year — contrary to popular belief — the wealthy do not always vote against their economic interests. In fact, far from it.

Yet there is a strange paradox. In response to Mr. Krugman’s post, a reader pointed out that when you look at the data on the state level, wealthy states do tend to vote for the Democratic Party, which has the reputation of raising taxes on the wealthy.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/how-did-rich-people-vote-and-why/

Sen. Obama won among independents but divided the suburban vote. And among voters in families earning over $200,000 a year, Sen. Obama improved over Sen. Kerry by 17 points.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122581133077197035.html


But I know that the media will come after our President on this.
They don't want the party to ever end!

[bluestateguy]

1. Maybe Thomas Frank's next book should be called "What's the Matter with Beverly Hills?"

nt

[FrenchieCat]

2. well, I want the GOP and the media to remember this

When they go after our President!

[FrenchieCat]

3. Kick!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

4. Rec'd

:kick:

[EraOfResponsibility]

5. Is there an email address for Michelle Bernard?

[Cha]

6. And, Newsflash..it's not a "class warfare".

People making over $250, 000 a year CARE about their country, too!

The ones who don't count the corporatemediawhores among them.

[Cha]

7. Sorry, the

time limit is up for Rec'd but this is important!

[FrenchieCat]

8. Aye!

That paragraph that I linked to should be quoted in all of our letters to congress and to the media!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8230971

[Cha]

9. Thanks for the link..

I needed that list again~

[Still Sensible]

10. And the fact is the $250,000 is based on net "taxable" income

which means that the people subject to the return to the 39.6% tax rate are actually grossing $325,000 or more.

The Reagan crowd (to some extent driven by incredibly ridiculous 70-80-90% top tax rates) was able to convince enough people to keep lowering the rates as the cornerstone of their trickle-down (read piss-on) supply side economic theory. These changes only get that rate back up to where it was when GWB took office.

I could support seeing the top rates get to about 50%. I know people here often "fondly" remember the 90% top tax rate in the 60s, but the memory is better than what the reality was. Back then, there were a lot more easy ways, both within the tax code and without, to shelter money. Sure the top payers paid 90% on some portion of their earnings, but paid zero on the rest--so they were effectively paying much less than 90% on their overall earnings.