For several years, I’ve been writing about Bushenfreude, the phenomenon of angry yuppies—who’ve hugely benefited from President Bush’s tax cuts—funding angry, populist Democratic campaigns. I’ve theorized that people who work in financial services and related fields have become so outraged and alienated by the incompetence, crass social conservatism, and repeated insults to the nation’s intelligence, of the Bush-era Republican Party, that they’re voting with their hearts and heads instead of their wallets.
[…]If the exit polls are to be believed, those making $200,000 or more (6 percent of the electorate) voted for Obama 52-46, while McCain won the merely well-off ($100,000 to $150,000 by a 51-48 margin and $150,000 to $200,000 by a 50-48 margin).
Right-wingers tend to dismiss such numbers as the voting behavior of trust funders or gazillionaires—people who have so much money that they just don’t care about taxes. That may explain a portion of Bushenfreude. But there just aren’t that many trust funders out there. Rather, it’s clear that the nation’s mass affluent—Steve the lawyer, Colby the financial services executive, Ari the highly paid media big shot—are trending Democratic, especially on the coasts. Indeed, Bushenfreude is not necessarily a nationwide phenomenon. As Andrew Gelman notes in the book “Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State,” the rich in poor states are likely to stick with the Republicans.
But in the ground zero of Bushenfreude, Fairfield County, Conn., it was practically an epidemic last week.
The “educated” tended to vote for Obama. When the education system has been subverted into an indoctrination program and had 3-4 generations to work it’s magic, what would you expect?
If we could pass a Constitutional amendment limiting total tax burden to 25% regardless of income, we would have a reasonable level to fund what government should be doing with cash to spare. Then the political debate could turn away from taxes to more important issues. However, in our current system, it takes a good 200K to have enough to even begin to worry about anything other than money.
#30 – “”I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was president, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,” Clinton said recently.”
Another opinion, not from a right winger.
One of the laws in question would be the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005. This would have addressed: minimum and critical capital levels, capital classifications and undercapitalized enterprises, enforcement actions and penalties, golden parachutes, and reporting. All these things are part of what caused the crash which we now experience.
This legislation was cosponsored by McCain. But, this is how Frank asses things, “”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.” ”
Additionally, we can trace the source of the problem to deregulation. No, not Republican deregulation, but that of … wait for it … Barney Frank: “Although Frank now blames Republicans for the failure of Fannie and Freddie, he spent years blocking GOP lawmakers from imposing tougher regulations on the mortgage giants. In 1991, … the Boston Globe reported that Frank pushed the agency to loosen regulations on mortgages for two- and three-family homes, even though they were defaulting at twice and five times the rate of single homes, respectively.
Three years later, President Clinton’s Department of Housing and Urban Development tried to impose a new regulation on Fannie, but was thwarted by Frank.” – summary from Boston Globe coverage.
In summation, things are EXACTLY like I think.
Oh, and as someone who obviously knows he is smarter than everyone else, perhaps you could try spelling my name correctly, it is, after all, right on all of my posts. How hard could it be?
#32 – But, this is how Frank asses things,
Should be assesses things, but asses covers Frank oh so well.
31,
but HOw would they get the OTHER 55% of our money..
I HOPE you dont think that 25% of your Pay check is ALL they are getting..
Add in property TAX(even renters pay it in RENT)
Transport tax(every state charges for trucks passing thru)
Interstate tax(yep, another one, just to HAVE a trucking company)
For those truckers:
you PAY THEM ALSO, including THEIR taxes..
Utility TAXES…you see them every month, and you PAY those to the stores AS corps PAY for nothing..
Then the REGISTRATION fees for your car..
License fee for your DRIVERS LICENSE..
ROAD tax,,
FUEL tax..
Taxes that PAY for Commercials in foreign countries for AMERICAN CIGS…(yep they’ve done it)
TAX on IMPORTs…
After you get done with ALL the tax, the USA pays out about 60-80% of wages in TAX…Then add to that PROFIT MARGINS…you you are in debt..
I like the image. Good idea to start with a pre-1956 bill. I keep a 1950 bill in my pocket to show to anyone who doesn’t believe that our money did not always have a godvertisement on the back.
# 35 Misanthropic Scott said, “I like the image. Good idea to start with a pre-1956 bill. I keep a 1950 bill in my pocket …”
And I keep a copy of the Declaration of Independence…
“When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, …”
#36 – Paddy, you just can’t win with anti-religious bigots. They really want to believe the Founders believe like they do.
“The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State.”
James Madison, 1819
“I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta [Constitution] of our country”
George Washington, 1789
“All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish [Muslim], appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe. It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. He takes up the profession of a priest for the sake of gain, and in order to qualify himself for that trade he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive anything more destructive to morality than this?”
Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason
I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789
http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
— Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315 (Some believe Thomas Paine wrote the original draft from which Jefferson and Adams copied the earliest surviving drafts [which contained stern denunciations against human slavery typical of Paine but not of Jefferson, and that it contains word usage typical of Paine’s writings but not of Jefferson’s], and that this was the secret which Paine, in a letter, assured George Washington that he had “ever been dumb on everything which might touch national honor” and would remain so. Since it was Jefferson’s appointed duty to draft the Declaration, it behooved them not to divulge that it came from another’s pen, though everyone during those times agreed that Paine’s pen was the most elequent of that era. [Arguments derived from Joseph Lewis.])
http://tinyurl.com/6mmynj
I’m sure your founding fathers never envisioned a country of such diversity and population. While some of the more philosophical points are still relevant(much like the Bible), some of the ideas are less practical in this day and age.
#36 Paddy
I see your heart is yearning to secede from the Union so that you wont be ruled by no black man. Good luck with that.
#38 & 39 – These quotes are all typical of what I see from atheists every time this discussion comes up. The salient point here is that the Founders maintained a great disdain for priests and churches, instruments of State power and oppression from history. They, you, and I have no quarrel on that issue. None of this supports the theory that the Founders themselves were atheists. The statements often made that they were ‘Deists’ or some other derivative are also belied by the many quotes from the Founders professing to be Christians, as in believers in a Divine Christ and God.
#41 Sorry, not following you. These quotes are typical of what the authors of the US constitution thought, nothing more.
If you want to ascribe this to atheistic religion hating motivations be my guest. If you’re reading these arguments as pro or anti religious then I think you’re missing the motivation for separation of church and state.
Start with the divine of Kings and the Magna Carta then work forward.
#1 Alex Wollangk
I think you said a lot and said it well. I’m starting to think that the majority of people are wired to vote in a particular way. Of course this would start the whole nature vs nurture argument so let’s avoid that. 😉
#44 – “Of course this would start the whole nature vs nurture argument so let’s avoid that. ”
Too late. There was a flurry of posts on Rs being ignorant and afraid and Ds being smarter, sweeter, and brighter a few weeks before the election.
#45 Yup, sounds typical.
I am less interested in the actual religion of these guys (who I think were eclectic geniuses) and more interested in their motivations, arguments, and colorful lives.
# 41 Hugh Ripper said, “I see your heart is yearning to secede from the Union so that you wont be ruled by no black man. Good luck with that.”
You’re babbling incoherently again.
Smart rich people (aka NOT Reagan conservatives) know that a balanced Federal budget BOOSTS the economy.
Therefore, a tax increase can mean mean money in our pockets. A tax-cut can lower our total incomes.
#48
there are 2 paths to balance the budget,
increase revenue
decrease spending
depending on the senario, the former might be possible by raising taxes and in some cases lowering taxes.
The latter is where the problems are. No pol seems to be for a real cuts in total spending. Likely for fear of not being re-elected. Too many persons have a vested vote for their own handout that they would not vote for a pol that would cut/eliminate it.
The very rich often don’t derive the bulk of there income through wages. To me a rich [monetarily speaking] person is one that does not have to work to maintain an affluent lifestyle.
When advantagous, many professionals in corporations distribute extra income as dividends as opposed to wages.
I would think that the high earners say those with earned incomes in the 7 figure range, have –at least should have– tax advisors that likely structure their income to achieve lower marginal taxes than the 150,000 to 200,000 or so earner that is likely stuck with or flirting with AMT.
It should be no surprise that they really dont mind a tax hike. Besides for many the bonus of being perceived as being for the little man is likely a reward in itself worth purchasing. Especially for public figures like hollywood types. Perhaps if we were back in the pre JFK tax cut days when Reagan was paying 70% marginal tax on his income — the hollywood stars would be against a tax hike.
#4 – Mister Fusion
The “thinking” man simply voted no to Bush by voting yes to Obama the “halfrican american”. You can’t seriously think the vote was decided by thinking people? Neither Obama or McCain would have one won in that case. Both are already bought and paid for by wallstreet. That was obvious when they both ran back to DC to vote on the 4T$ bailout. I know, the vote was 700B$, then porkinflated to 850B$ as passed. Wallstreet knew Obama would be easier to run and by the time they are done, it will be at least 4T$. Notice GM needs a bailout already and AIG needs more too and Obama is jumping at the chance to hand it out to them. Take one look at his cabinent selections picked for him. No change there. Oh well, I’m sure some educated thinking people think everything will turn out swell. For the real thinking man, this is way more than a democrats versus the republicans.
#48
> Therefore, a tax
> increase can mean
> mean money in our pockets.
> A tax-cut can lower our
> total incomes.
Wow. Talk about 1984 Newspeak. “freedom is slavery.”
The government having an enormous debt is obviously bad. However, revenue is not the issue. The Federal government has more than enough money. They simply need to stop spending beyond their means and actually live with a balanced budget. If the Federal government budget had been balanced for the past eight years and then they decided they needed a tax increase, fine. However, in the past 50 years, I’ll bet you can count the number of years with a balanced budget on one hand with fingers left over.
It’s simple. People with too much money are insane! You either have to become insane, to become insanely wealthy. Or becoming insanely wealthy, causes you to become insane. In any case you end up voting to end it all. So you back the executioner of you existence. It kind of like an obese person hiring Richard Simmons to get themselves thin again. They’re not going to hire Homer Simpson, to kick the donut habit!
I think excessive wealth should be classified and treated as a mental disease. Like a substance abuse problem. People who have lots of booze on hand, and drink it all day long, aren’t merely called the alcohol rich. And if they were only “hurting” themselves by hording so much wealth, it could be ignored, I suppose. But hording wealth is like hording clean air and water, or fuel oil. Other people need the money to put it to use. What’s horded has to replaced with new money, that ends up reducing the worth of it all. Billionaire are sick people that ought to get help. They certainly can afford it. But they often don’t think they’ve got enough money yet, to be absolutely safe from poverty. Eventually, they may realize no amount of money can make them feel happy, safe and secure. They’re no better than the rest of us, even with billions.
“The government having an enormous debt is obviously bad. However, revenue is not the issue. ”
During the Bush years, WITH tax cuts, revenue has gone up for the Treasury.
Yes, put the gov’t on a diet. THAT is what smart rich people support.