This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

You've Only Got Yourself To Blame

Tyler Durden's picture




 

The questions of who are the 1% and what level of income demarcates the fat cats from the rest of Americans are likely to become more and more polarizing in the coming weeks. What is perhaps the most intriguing is the apparent dichotomy between the demographics (youth - who face considerably worse employment trends) and state-wealth who voted for Obama. As ConvergEx's Nick Colas notes, of all the U.S. states with an above-average incidence of their citizens earning over $200,000 (14 in total), all but one (Alaska) went for President Obama in last week’s election.  At the other end of the income spectrum, only 2 states in the bottom 10 for +$200K earners (Maine and Iowa) had a majority of voters who sided with the President.

Via Nick Colas, ConvergEx:

In the spirit of the notion that politics makes strange bedfellows – we’ll interpret that to include roommates as well – I went looking for some examples from the recent Presidential election.  And since there is so much fuss about the question of “What level of income makes a household well-off?” we threw that into the mix as well.  In the tabel above you will find an analysis of state-by-state income levels, wealth disparity, cost of housing, and which candidate that state favored in last week’s election. 

 

A few summary points:

  • The greater the percentage of households making over $200,000/year in a given state, the more likely it is that its citizens voted for President Obama rather than Governor Romney.  Of the top 10 states in terms of “high income” households as a percentage of the total state-wide population, nine of them will be awarding their Electoral College votes to Obama.  The only holdout here is Alaska.
  • There are a total of 13 states (plus DC) where the number of +$200,000/year households as a percentage of the state-wide exceed the national average of 3.93%.  They are: the District of Columbia, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, California, Alaska, Hawaii, Illinois, Colorado, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island.  As mentioned, Alaska went for Governor Romney.  And it is the only state on this list that did.
  • At the other end of the spectrum, the 10 states with the lowest percentage of +$200,000/year income households relative to the local population are Mississippi, Montana, West Virginia, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Indiana, Maine, Alabama, and Iowa.  Eight of those states swung Republican in last week’s Presidential contest.  The two exceptions were Iowa and Maine.
  • The central irony of this straightforward math is that any increase in income taxes on the “Wealthy” will be disproportionately borne by the states which secured the President’s reelection.  Only 1.87% of the households in the states mentioned in the last bullet – the Republican leaning ones – earn over $200,000.  Conversely, an average of 6.48% of the households at the top end of the state-by-state list earns this much.  And, as mentioned, with the exception of Alaska they all favored President Obama over Governor Romney.
  • Whether this is merely correlation or causation is the subject of countless articles in political science journals, for as you review these lists of states you’ll see that this isn’t just about Election Day 2012.  The hard-core “Red” states tend to have lower percentages of wealthy households, and the dyed-in-the-wool “Blue” states have more.  Much more.
  • Also, if you look at the GINI Index – a measure of income inequality – Republican leaning states enjoy more equality on these terms than the citizens of traditionally Democratic areas of the country.  They may not be Sweden (GINI Index 23.0), but Romney-voting Mississippi, Montana, West Virginia, Arkansas and Idaho average 44.9 on the GINI scale.  On the other side of the political and economic coin, Democratic strongholds New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut and DC have an average GINI score of 48.0. That is a three-point difference – about the same as currently exists between the U.S. average (GINI score 47) and Iran (GINI score 45).
  • You might argue that a dollar goes a lot further in some states than others, and you’d have a point.  For example, the average median listing price for a single family home in the five states with the lowest percentage of +$200,000 households is $169,780 as of 2011.  For the top five states (plus DC) in terms of high-income households, that number is almost twice as much at $304,140.  “Wealthy” in Mississippi is different than “wealthy” in New York. Not that any attempt to implement a higher tax rate on the much-referenced “1%” will take that into account...
 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:09 | 2978267 DCCynic
DCCynic's picture

Love it.  We really do get the government we deserve.  HL Mencken lives

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:21 | 2978306 vast-dom
vast-dom's picture

REPLACE GUN WITH OBAMAPHONE.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:15 | 2978466 AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

it is not about the price of a house but quality of education system and employment opportunities.

 

plus, areas where housing is cheap, people spend more money to get a larger house with larger real estate taxes and maintenance fees.

 

 

 

 

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:26 | 2978504 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

I wish I could get paid to make such borad sweeping generalizations and not have to deal with that human factor.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 05:11 | 2979077 GernB
GernB's picture

OK, here's the human factor. In attempting to equalize income by raising taxes you will put hundereds of thousand out of work. In trying to provide a living wage, the minimum wage is pricing hundereds of thousands of people ot of the work place condemining them to poverty. In attempting to provide health care for all, the leviathan you put in place will take away personal choice and decide to kill people to control costs. You want compasion, then let people help people, because governments can only force people to take care of one another and there's no compassion in being forced to do something.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 05:11 | 2979078 GernB
GernB's picture

OK, here's the human factor. In attempting to equalize income by raising taxes you will put hundereds of thousand out of work. In trying to provide a living wage, the minimum wage is pricing hundereds of thousands of people ot of the work place condemining them to poverty. In attempting to provide health care for all, the leviathan you put in place will take away personal choice and decide to kill people to control costs. You want compasion, then let people help people, because governments can only force people to take care of one another and there's no compassion in being forced to do something.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 13:18 | 2980313 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

There are simply no facts to back up your assertion.  Do you honestly belive that if we reduce taxes on the wealthy they will give you a raise? No they won't - for the reason that giving tax breaks to the wealthy doesn't help the econemy - weatlhy people do not spend money.  No go shop your 'facts' to Karl Rove and Mitt Romney who obviously rely on illusions like yours to target their get out the vote campaigns.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 07:41 | 2979165 flattrader
flattrader's picture

>>>At the other end of the spectrum, the 10 states with the lowest percentage of +$200,000/year income households relative to the local population are Mississippi, Montana, West Virginia, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Indiana, Maine, Alabama, and Iowa.  Eight of those states swung Republican in last week’s Presidential contest.  The two exceptions were Iowa and Maine.<<<

Just means the culture wars are still being fought by an army of low-income whites who think voting Republican is a vote for American family "values."

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 13:21 | 2980323 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

And conversly there really are Wealthy Democrats who think that paying for this great society we live in is a good idea - so we don't end up like Mexico.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 13:21 | 2980324 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:40 | 2978516 ACP
ACP's picture

Disagree. It's about having an educational system that teaches people what they need to learn in life and the most effective ways to manage pitfalls.

The great educational system in Western Europe sure the hell didn't keep the populace from getting sucked into the black hole of socialism and fucking themselves raw, did it?

Edit: Additionally, an educational system that is "free" and where test scores are higher than another country means NOTHING when the social conscience of the students is completely back-asswards. Yes, education is important, but a free one isn't necessarily a good one. Why is the greatest innovation still in the US, even after decades of decline?

Opportunity, not social promotion.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 23:43 | 2978709 Ident 7777 economy
Ident 7777 economy's picture

 

 

Okay, your edit earned a +1 and well deserved at that.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 07:09 | 2979133 Acet
Acet's picture

"the social conscience of the students is completely back-asswards"

That sounds a lot like a values statement to me. It's not the funtion of the Education system to imbue people with a specific set of Values, Ethics or Morals - its function is to give students the tools needed to succeed in life (wether later those students will actually use those tools or not is a whole different matter). As much as you think that "ACPs" set of Values is superior and everybody should come out of school thinking like you (for example, believing that Europe is Socialist) it should not be the function of the school system to make the students minds about those things - sure, teach them Skepticism, teach them the notions of Propaganda, Propagandistic techniques, Marketting techniques, the Scientific Method and Phsychology principles, but then leave them to choose their own path.

 

"Why is the greatest innovation still in the US, even after decades of decline?"

Money: the US imports he vast majority of its Scientists. Look around at the names in most Patent applications and Research Papers produced in the US - they ain't American.

 

Mind you, I agree with much of what you said.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 13:24 | 2980348 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Keep telling yourself that we lead in innovation, but it's simply not true.  We're being overtaken there too.  This country basically has natural resoruces and a bunch of farmland in the middle - that's it.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 08:19 | 2979199 blown income
blown income's picture

Houses are not cheap here , 1 example http://www.vaneatonromero.com/L12233232 this is in Lafayette La on postage stamp lot , I looked at this home for shit's and giggles Sunday ,no yard to speak of...s

 

 

Some homes here going for $200 a foot fucking joke- http://www.villageofriverranchrealty.idxco.com/i/4226/River_Ranch_Homes_...

 

 

 

 

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 00:06 | 2978757 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

Yeah, Americans are the Olympic champions of false class consciousness! Pretty well more than 50% Americans believe or identify with ideas or values that do not actually represent them! The best brainwashing that money could buy perhaps deserves some Oscars to go with those Olympic gold medals?

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 07:51 | 2979172 flattrader
flattrader's picture

Yep.

There's an army of working class whites still out there fighting the false flag culture wars on behalf of the Republican Party.

The notable exception was Missouri voters who told the recruiting poster boy of the nut case anti-abortion faction, Todd Akin, to go fuck himself.

The state went to Romney, but MO Reps split down ticket and elected Mc Caskill for Senate and retained a Democratic governor. Jay Nixon.

I guess there comes a point when you can't vote for "stupid" any longer.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:10 | 2978272 A Lunatic
A Lunatic's picture

So why the Hell am I to blame myself...................??

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:40 | 2978373 unrulian
unrulian's picture

Who cares?..what was the alternative? they both sucked

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:05 | 2978432 CH1
CH1's picture

Ummmm... stop playing a rigged game?

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 00:08 | 2978765 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

The game is ridiculously rigged to the degree that it is titled to practically be a vertical cliff! But, there is no choice but to play.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 00:19 | 2978778 Ident 7777 economy
Ident 7777 economy's picture

It only looks rigged TO YOU I have to add.

 

I wonder why that is?

 

Complete lack of any perceptual ability I would conjecture ...

 

(Where did Michael Dell, Bill Gates et al get the hut-spa to excel, whereas you're flat on your ass?)

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 01:08 | 2978876 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

well, Bill Gates signed on the dotted line, and voila! 

insta-genius!  of course, the monies he gathers for setting up his intentionally buggy system on behalf of. . .

get poured into "foundations" that continue the Agenda he's rewarded for, etc. etc. etc.

Buffet's his best pal, donated HIS fortune to Bill for the foundational plots - do the math.

Warren E. Buffett, the chairman of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. and one of the world's wealthiest men, plans to donate the bulk of his $44 billion fortune to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and four other philanthropies starting in July.

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/26/business/26buffett.html

they work in mysterious ways, these men. . .

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:12 | 2978279 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"Collective" gasp ;-)

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:58 | 2978411 fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

Here is a news flash for everyone outside of NY. Not all New Yorkers make $251,000. I'd argue that 95% of New Yorkers make less than that. I'd also argue that the majority of the 95% that make less than 250k are idiots. They voted O in for other reasons. Although they certainly are not against the 5% that make big bucks getting slammed. Although we all know that 5% is on Wall Street and they are the biggest beneficiaries of O's easy money polocies.

To summarize, NY is full of idiots, but most are not rich. California I would argue is full of rich idiots.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:17 | 2978470 Cabreado
Cabreado's picture

In the latter stages of chaos, the definition of "idiot" will morph into something, anything different, and the slant will be towards a self-serving definition.

What you're looking for, I think, is awareness, outward thinking, humility...

Those are the things that, left by the wayside, brought us down.

Lots of "intelligent" people who possess none of the character traits necessary to sustain anything.

Self-Absorption is the most dangerous force on this planet.
It just so happens that you and I happen to be here when it reaches its peak -- and it reaches its peak only because it has to.

 

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:28 | 2978508 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

No idea where you were going wtih that. Idiot literally means ignorant. Same word different root.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 05:00 | 2979073 chenn
chenn's picture

Ummm, no.  Ignorance is not knowing some fact or idea.  An idiot is mentally deficient in their ability to learn facts or ideas.

Example:

You were ignorant because you didn't know this but you are only an idiot if you don't understand it now.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 07:20 | 2979141 Acet
Acet's picture

Many years ago, having ended up in one of the hardest, most demending University courses (Physics) in my home country, surrounded by people whose IQs were far above the level of genious, I soon found out a deep truth that has been proven to me right again and again in my life:

  • Being Intelligent is not the same as being Smart

Yupes, people with huge memories, able to think very fast, capable to see the patterns behind the patterns behind the patterns, who can hold and change huge complex logical structures in their minds are still as likelly to be idiots as everybody else. The main difference is that they think highly of their own mental powers, to such a point that highly inteligent people are actually easier to scam.

In fact, being successfull in life is barelly correlated with IQ, and some of the biggest failures I've ever met were actually highly intelligent people.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:16 | 2978283 stocktivity
stocktivity's picture

How can Ron Paul say we are not as productive in this nation as we used to be....ha....take that general in Afghanistan. The commanding General of 60000 of our troops in Afghanistan has the time to send 30000 emails to some married gal in the states over the past 2 years. That's a lot of emails in 2 years....let's see...roughly 41 emails a day!  I guess he had nothing better to do besides try to protect 60000 soldiers. Don't tell me we aren't as productive....and now our Congress and President want to give him a promotion....to Petraeus job of CIA Director.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:23 | 2978314 Bawneee Fwank
Bawneee Fwank's picture

Well when your only job is to make sure the poppy harvest gets loaded up and sent out to various locations around the world there aint much to do.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:48 | 2978392 toomanyfakecons...
toomanyfakeconservatives's picture

Shit floats to the top in the military, just like it does in politics.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:54 | 2978579 machinegear
machinegear's picture

At least Petraeus wasn't surfing porn. He went after the real thing. Give props where due. Dude.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 01:32 | 2978914 ReactionToClose...
ReactionToClosedMinds's picture

Sir: when all is said & done ... I may end up agreeing with you .... but right now ... all you have are Team 44 news leaks to their proferred news media propagandists.

Let's see what the real story is when everyone has a change to weigh in ...but then asking for scepticism & patience is akin to asking the judicious mob at the Oxbow Incident to pause & reflect what is really going on ....

 

 

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:24 | 2978321 TrustWho
TrustWho's picture

Your math is correct, but your explanation is wrong. We all respond to the self respecting humanity created by liberty. When everyone has about the same purchasing power, there is little envy. However, when the super rich demonstrate their arrogance and greed for all to see, envy is heightened. Therefore, where the rich lived, the less rich citizens were more likely to vote for Obama and the poor states had less envy and were less to vote for Obama.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:30 | 2978335 A Lunatic
A Lunatic's picture

Either way, Obama doesn't need the rich anymore, and the rich don't need anymore competition. Read my lips, no new riches...........bitchez.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 05:31 | 2979087 GernB
GernB's picture

Large cities tend to result in people with less empthy for their fellow man, They tend to intellectualize social problems and depersonalize others (like rich people) because they lack empathy. They believe people are inherently bad and must be forced to do the right thing by taxing them and using the taxes for charitable purposes, because they don't trust people to do it volentarily (or because they have no empathy for the life they are stealing from others in the form of their labor). They vote for people who promise to regulate and control and institutionalize fairness, because they think it is the only way to make sure the less fortunate are cared for.

People in rural areas tend to be more trusting and believe people are inherently good and therefore trust most people to use their freedom wisely and to the benefit of their fellow man. They tend to see social problems as stemming from individual interactions rather than as part of some grand abstract concept they can control. They vote for more individual freedom because they trust that people will take care of other people.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:25 | 2978323 GeezerGeek
GeezerGeek's picture

Is it possible that those at the lower end of the income ladder in those states with high percentages of high-income earners are indulging in class warfare? Perhaps the poor voted for Obama to stick it to those around them who are so much better off financially. Of course, there is no explaining why so many of 'the rich' in those high-GINI states voted for Obama. Wealth does not correlate well with intelligence.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:11 | 2978457 illyia
illyia's picture

Perhaps those in the more wealthy, democratically aligned states just have enough money to pass some on. Maybe their wealth affords them the luxury of seeing socialism as a good thing - as a duty. Maybe the poorer states are more inclined to want to keep their wealth at home and are proud. Like many impoverished people, perhaps they resent that all their work doesn't afford them as much as the wealthier blue states. I suspect education and technology has a good deal to do with this, as well a urbanisation.

Certainly there is a trend, and the wealth has clearly voted for Obama, even though they may pay more themselves.

That is what the chart says...

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:21 | 2978488 fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

The Big money in NY voted for Romney. The semi big money (500k plus) certainly voted for Romney. The masses in NY (contrary to opinion) that make under 250k overwhelmingly voted in Obama.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 13:29 | 2980388 pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

The masses making under 250k? The masses make well under 100k.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:42 | 2978545 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"Like many impoverished people, perhaps they resent that all their work doesn't afford them as much as the wealthier blue states."

Perhaps, as the article implies, they are not as impoverished as you think.

I sat at a boat ramp yesterday and watched a 90yr old lady catch 8 fish that a NYC restaurant would charge 30 bucks a plate for. How is the fishing in NYC storm drains up there by the way?

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:46 | 2978558 fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

i watch people around here pay $30 for Tilapia and think they are ordering a deiicacy. One time i just had to let everyone know that tilapia are fish used to eat other fish's crap. everyone was apalled and assumed i was making that up. whatever.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:33 | 2978517 Dasa Slooofoot
Dasa Slooofoot's picture

Of course, there is no explaining why so many of 'the rich' in those high-GINI states voted for Obama. 

 

Because it is government that affords them their rich salaries?  I'm from Long Island and for a public "servant" to make more than 250k is not rare.  

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:50 | 2978563 fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

also from long island and agree with u about the public servants making big bucks. ironically i know a few and they are (now) hardcore repubs. they want someone to put a stop to this out of control monetary policy. of course their 6 figure pension has nothing to do with it. they earned that.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:29 | 2978330 Doubleguns
Doubleguns's picture

I am waiting for those Dem states to implement higher state taxes on the rich. Seems they would be all over that...ya think.

Its not like they are hypocrites or anything.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:09 | 2978448 CH1
CH1's picture

The really rich (as opposed to the productive) don't give a shit.

First of all, only income is taxed, not wealth. Secondly, that's what trusts are for.

Socialism is the dream system of the criminal rich: it puts all the wealth under the control of a single entity, who is eager to work with them

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:31 | 2978331 buzzsaw99
buzzsaw99's picture

Faulty logic. The poor outnumber the wealthy in every state. Those making over $200K didn't put the president into office.

btw i do not consider $200K to be excessive. I consider the kleptocrat rat bastards like mozilo, paulson, corzine, blankfein, dimon, buffett, and his bozo billionaire's club to be the real problem.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:44 | 2978385 Vampyroteuthis ...
Vampyroteuthis infernalis's picture

Well put buzzsaw. The sheeple elected Obamao, not the wealthy.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:13 | 2978459 CH1
CH1's picture

Hello..... the 10 richest counties all went for Obama.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 00:10 | 2978767 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

Yeah, but the wealthy paid to teach the sheeple to bleat their morality.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:14 | 2978463 Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

"Those making over $200K didn't put the president into office."

Not like they've done fabulously well during his first term or anything...

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:58 | 2978589 machinegear
machinegear's picture

Wouldn't it be safe to say both the poor and wealthy have a vested interest to maintain the current system that feeds them benefits from an ever shrinking productive group of people?

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 10:37 | 2979539 Kobe Beef
Kobe Beef's picture

The Plutocracy above, the Lootarchy below. You've got it, machinegear. The end result is Orwell's IngSoc.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:30 | 2978334 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

Something of interest to me would be to know what the middle looked like. DC for example is full of high pay government employees and lobbyists but they also have some of the worst schools in America. That would indicate to me that middle class people, not dependent on a government check, are pretty thin. The wealthy are not a significant voting force by themselves to have any effect on election outcomes. It is middle and lower incomes that do the voting. And a large income disparity could likely cause a vengefull middle/lower income turnout.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:51 | 2978364 knukles
knukles's picture

double post (explosive colon)

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:49 | 2978395 knukles
knukles's picture

The worst public schools, products of gubamint biznezz.

The rich folk sends they chillen' to pribate skiools, real fucking expensive private schools, including the chillin' of the highly paid gobamintal fuckers allocating the monies to the shit public schools.

And them real high coast private schools is a product of the free market.

Go fucking figure.

Edit...
And here's why.

Just like them generals was thinkin' with their small heads because it made them feel good, the rich vote for the socialist to absolve them of their sins, makes them feel good... but the monetary penalty felt is naught as they make so much....
All emotions....

Can't fix stupid

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:14 | 2978464 illyia
illyia's picture

the rich vote for the socialist to absolve them of their sins, makes them feel good

I agree.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 23:05 | 2978610 geoffr
geoffr's picture

Helping the poor with your own money directly and your own time is just too much of hastle. At least that's my guess of what's going on the heads of rich liberals.

Or maybe they can't conceive that government charitable efforts aren't the only way to help people and *shocker* aren't always effective. In fact, they can be counter-productive.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 11:09 | 2979681 Diogenes
Diogenes's picture

The super rich have done awfully well under the "socialist". The poor, not so well.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:00 | 2978417 Smiddywesson
Smiddywesson's picture

Another perspective on the "high paid government employees" is that the G is allowed to recruit among the nation's best schools for jobs that aren't really all that challenging.  So you have a large number of people in the G that could have made a lot of money in private industry like their classmates, but instead they followed their dream and trusted the government.  If you dislike these misguided souls, your revenge is the knowledge that most of these people are now working for a government idiot who was pushed up to his extreme level of incompetence, and curse the day they joined.

Under the FERS retirement system, they get 1/3 of their top three earning years for a pension check, plus their 401k, if the markets leave them anything in their 401k. Hey, something is better than nothing, but given the health of the dollar, I'd say they are in for a big surprise in retirement.

 

 

 

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:30 | 2978336 Die Weiße Rose
Die Weiße Rose's picture

Disobey!

WORLD WAR 3 IS COMING!

"We are on a road that leads straight to the World War 3, but in order to see that and to fully understand what is at stake you have to look at the big picture and connect the dots. This video examines the history of the dollar, its relation to oil, and the real motives behind the wars of the past two decades." - The Road To WW3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5mFbVmRTSo

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 07:32 | 2979155 Anasteus
Anasteus's picture

Disobey, disobey... that's exactly what people have either not enough courage to undergo or they are not motivated to. There is still room for further corruption and worsening. Sadly, for most people all information, motives behind or even education means almost nothing as long as the system is being perceived as comfortable or acceptable enough.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:34 | 2978346 New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

"The questions of who are the 1%..."

are readily resolved and they are highly misrepresented.

For example, my very own "Granny Warren", the self-proclaimed "founder of the OWS movement" is, wait for it... a member of the 1%.

Who Knew????

- Ned

{more reporting from,  as Our Dear President explicated in his AutoBiography (the first of many): "I felt as though I was operating behind enemy lines."}

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:13 | 2978461 CH1
CH1's picture

who are the 1%...

Drop out of their system and you no longer need to care.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 02:03 | 2978943 in4mayshun
in4mayshun's picture

I know I'm the 1%......I make 1% of what the rich make.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:34 | 2978351 knukles
knukles's picture

Karma.

 

Can't fix stupid.

 

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:38 | 2978365 Smiddywesson
Smiddywesson's picture

No, but you sure can purchase its vote!

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:36 | 2978357 New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

"You've Only Got Yourself To Blame"

Is this true?  I can only blame myself?  And no one can blame me?  If so, then I'd blame myself and then  we can all move on.

How 'bout that!

- Ned

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:37 | 2978363 Smiddywesson
Smiddywesson's picture

I blame Nathen Johnson, typical bastard!

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:36 | 2978358 vato poco
vato poco's picture

AW, *HELL* no, pal, I don't blame _me_. I blame all the ignorant and/or greedy fucks who decided to shit on the Constitution starting somewhere along about 1910 or so. Then cranked up the 'limited to the rich' ("We promise!!") income tax; then "gave us" the goddamn Fed; then institutionalized national toalitarianism in The War to Save Democracy (LOL); then gave women the goddamn vote; and then when FDR saw his chance, gleefully finished off the country so quickly and completely it makes Obama look like the worthless lazy bitch he is. Turns out there was big bucks and lotsa votes to be had picking over & remaindering the corpse. Who knew??

The same sorry, scummy fucks who destroyed it all for a chance to make a buck/exercise limitless power over the proles/have a gummint check mailed to them on a regular basis. ("Fer FREE, Beulah!!") Then were allowed to vote & breed. Then passed down those 'values' to their idiot spawn. For the record, that includes the fucking Republicans, too: you boys love Uncle Sugar's money/power tit just like your "enemies" the Dems do. So Fuck You, Colas: I've only got *them* to blame.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:10 | 2978451 lead salad
lead salad's picture

Damn skippy. You've made me even more pissed.....I just had to listen to a f'n Alanis Morissette song in the bar I'm drinkin'.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 23:08 | 2978606 Jugdish
Jugdish's picture

Isn't it ironic? Don't ya think....... Hahaha God damn that sucks. Tryin to enjoy an ice cold beer and that shit comes on. And to top it off Obama is on the jumbo-tron. Damn. "Bar maid, double Crown, neat."

Fuck. I should have been a blow job. I blame my father.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 06:25 | 2979112 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

Alexander Hamilton started shitting on the Constitution before the ink was even dry (no later than September 1792).  The seduction of the consolidated power in the nation's capital and the largess of the monied interests soon co-opted the true idealogical opposition.  The faux 2-party system lasted until 1861, and was back in full farce after a brief hiatus of several years, and it has persisted ever since.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 06:28 | 2979113 eclectic syncretist
eclectic syncretist's picture

vato poco: + 100

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:36 | 2978359 Smiddywesson
Smiddywesson's picture

I'll take a stab at this.  If you are an individual, or a corporation, which is the same as a person to that perversion known as the judiciary, and you have employed a lobbyist, then you have had a part in this and cannot complain when the people with the torches and pitchforks show up.  If they merely raise your taxes to repair the damage, consider yourself lucky.  

I know you resorted to lobbyists to be able to compete and survive, but that's basically the argument of the guards at the concentration camps.  They were just following orders, doing what they had to do, or didn't really know what was really going on.  

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:41 | 2978366 adr
adr's picture

None of the 1% care if taxes on earned income go to 90% as long as capital gains are taxed at 14%. Go ahead and tax the $200k salary at 90%. The CEO will just keep granting himself $100 million a year in stock options taxed at the capital gains rate. In fact if you raise taxes, more CEOs will just pay themselves $1 for their salary.

The wealthy went for Obama because he has proven he won't go after the real source of their wealth, fraud.

The poor went for Obama because he has proven he will give them more stuff for sitting on their ass. They don't even have to apply for a job every couple months anymore.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 00:39 | 2978818 Arthur
Arthur's picture

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:41 | 2978374 billwilson
billwilson's picture

Actually most of the red states  are actually ''takers'' in that they receive more from the government than they pay in. So we have the ''we want less government folks'' wanting to cut their own benefits. Sounds about right.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:07 | 2978441 Smiddywesson
Smiddywesson's picture

Red for you on that comment.  This is a big game of Three Card Monte, and those "benefits" you are referring to is the cancer that has already eaten away the other states.  Most of the New Deal went to states that didn't support FDR, because the deal was all about securing power.  It's no different today.  You should have figured it out by now, but instead, you are blaming those who are under siege and slowly succumbing to the rot that has destroyed both coasts.

You just ruined my good time.  I'm out of here guys.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:42 | 2978376 zorba THE GREEK
zorba THE GREEK's picture

Obama didn't win the election, Romney lost it and Obama won by default.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 00:21 | 2978785 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

Yeah, zorba, no matter how extremely bad Emperor Obama was and is, the puppet put up against him looked like he would be worse! In the first-past-the-post system, only the choice between number 1 and number 2 makes any real difference. Therefore, there was no real choice from the start, only been very bad, and even worse! Still, it was a little bit of fun that the banksters threw enough money and media support behind Romney to make it look like it was a race. However, these days, I believe, the voting machines are so totally rigged, along with all the other standard merhods of rigging elections, that the best cheaters win. The Obama team was already in place, to be able to cheat better this time, than the others were able to do, as they were before. But nevertheless, I agree with the bottom line assessment that you asserted, that Romney was the designated loser, that those who picked that rigged system gave a fighting chance to, just to make it look better, as a controlled puppet show.

The fact that it is so easy to put on a ridiculous puppet show, controlled by the same puppet masters, is what this whole article touches a bit upon. American voters are stuck watching a puppet show, and many of them still like it, and get into the silly story being portrayed, as if it matters.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 21:44 | 2978384 The Shootist
The Shootist's picture

It's ok, I think all citizens or illegals who voted for Obama should be made to account. If you support the destruction of this country, you will eventually be tracked down, exposed, and made to pay for damages.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:08 | 2978445 nah
nah's picture

we should tax people at 90% from the highest income percentile on down until we balance the budget, that way the affected buffets of the world will have an interest in limited government, or running for office, and if they dont

.

who gives a fuck, they get the majority of windfall profits due to government policy anyways

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 01:06 | 2978871 Incubus
Incubus's picture

Makes sense.  I'll work harder so you can take 90% of what I make. 

 

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:16 | 2978468 diesheepledie
diesheepledie's picture

 

 

 

Dear Sheeple,

Die Motherfuckers!!

D.S.D.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:58 | 2978591 fuu
fuu's picture

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eF8c3BjFWsw

 

And simply what this means is
He didn't know that every dog had his day
Until he seen his

Thu, 11/15/2012 - 01:54 | 2983178 diesheepledie
diesheepledie's picture

Yes!! But the music would go much better with video of riot police beating the dumb sheeple with night sticks and herding them into FEMA camps. Definite favorite if that were the case. Sheeple ... ughhh :-(

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:21 | 2978486 sharky2003
sharky2003's picture

I live somewhere where you basically have to make 100k to "get by", with a household income having to near 200k to feel comfortable. I was appauled that the votes in my precinct went 60-40 for Obozo... if you have to make that much just to get by, why on earth would you vote to increase your own taxes?? I just don't get it. People are dumb.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:29 | 2978510 A Lunatic
A Lunatic's picture

The same psychology applies to an alcoholic and it goes something like this: I'm not an alcoholic because I go to work every day.......because I'm not in the gutter......because I don't beat my wife...........etc. There is always someone either better or worse off than you and most intellectually lazy people will use this as an excuse to perform the most inexcusable of acts, such as voting for Obama.............

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 04:30 | 2979052 Lord Koos
Lord Koos's picture

Some people's idea of "getting by" includes owning two or three cars (at least one of which must be a fairly new SUV), 30 mile commutes, 2000+ sq. ft houses, lots of toys, a house in a "good" neighborhood, shopping at Whole Foods, a mortgage they can barely afford, car payments, lots of electronic toys, private school for the kids, using tons of energy, etc.  

I live in an expensive city and I could live extremely well on half of that, I presently get by on less than that. If it's that bad, I'd move and/or figure out how to downsize.  

At present federal tax rates for individuals and corporations are the lowest they've been in 70 years, yet the bitching about them is at an all-time high.  WTF.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 08:39 | 2979256 bourbondave
bourbondave's picture

Your posts are consistently stupid and ill-informed.  Tax rates don't mean anything compared to the $ taxes actually paid.  Also, federal tax rates for corporates are among the highest in the world.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 07:01 | 2979121 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

I think your idea of "getting by" is extravagant.  I live in a city where the cost of living is 175% of that in NYC.  The poverty line $50,000 and median household income is just under $100,000.  In order to take full advantage of the foreign earned income exclusion and not incur a tax obligation back in the US- I cannot pay myself more than $95,000 per year.  It's not comfortable, but it's definitely getting by, and the only alternatives are contributing to the delinquency of my fellow citizens, or permanently turning my back to their suffering.

The formal education system is broken beyond any hope of effective or timely repair.  So education will be provided by experience.  The stupid people who thought that taxes would only rise significantly for those evil rich fat cats, will learn by experience that it doesn't work like that.  The delayed Obamacare taxes, the expiration of the post 9/11 tax cuts (and intervening bracket inflation and deduction deflation), the payroll tax scam- the warnings were all there, and ostrich-like sheeple chose willful ignorance.

 

edit: for the mathematically challenged- that would equate to trying to "get by" in NYC on an income of under $55,000 per year (including rent)

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:28 | 2978509 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

 The " Headline" speaks for its-self!

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:38 | 2978538 Bansters-in-my-...
Bansters-in-my- feces's picture

Don't matter shit who you voted for ,they both would have still gave the green light to chemtrail the fuck out of yous all.

You's are all being S.A.G ed

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:52 | 2978576 azengrcat
azengrcat's picture

And when they remove the mortgage interest deduction the Sausalito Socialists are going to sh!t bricks.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 22:55 | 2978584 Jack Burton
Jack Burton's picture

America has become obsessed with how much wealth a person has in money form. A guy with a good wife and great kids may be wealthy in my opinion. But modern America measures a person by money wealth, we seem to think it should dictate who he votes for, what he should think, how he should judge his fellow Americans.

The way America has seperated itself along money wealth lines will destroy the nation. Why does the money in your pocket define what type of man you are, what you believe and who you should vote for. This is NUTS!

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 01:33 | 2978913 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

.

"SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!"

media trained, enthralled, mystified, GordonGekko'd, everyone wants to be the smartest guys in the room. . .

culture, working as intended.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 06:58 | 2979124 JuicedGamma
JuicedGamma's picture

Inevitably the guy with the great wife and kids has money because he's not the middle school history teacher or the local pharmacist. That stopped with Happy Days.
Face it "greed is good", Hollywood told us, it must be true.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 23:16 | 2978639 eddiebe
eddiebe's picture

I would consider it a miracle if those with substancially more than I have would allow me to even work for a decent living wage for doing work they need done. ( And I don't mean the chickenshit $2.- more than minimum wage, but enough to not to have to worry about buying food when my transmission on my rustbucket takes a dump.)

 Like growing their food for example. Aint going to happen though. They get theirs by fucking guys like me over in any way they can, and will keep doing so as long as they are allowed to.      That's just the way it is.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 01:00 | 2978860 Incubus
Incubus's picture

Either make shit, own shit, or be happy with a job.

 

Just Over Broke is where you belong if you're completely/less than average.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 00:41 | 2978827 Arthur
Arthur's picture

Totaly assine to tax those who work for their money at  a higher rate then those recieve funds from other sources.

Just tax all forms of income equally and allow a fair minimium deduction.  

Such a plan would allow everyone to choose how to spend & invest their money without the dictatorial hand of the tax man guiding their actions.

 

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 04:33 | 2979053 Lord Koos
Lord Koos's picture

"Other sources"???

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 07:30 | 2979153 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

That's incorrect. There is a strong argument for taxing all forms of incoming equally. The argument for taxing some other forms of income preferentially is to promote capital formation and investment (i.e. jobs). 

However, the perverse incentives in the US have derailed that intention and outcome. In theory & experience, either the small business entrepeneur with franchise-scale amount of savings, or Warren Buttfuck with a TBTF cash horde, are more likely to deploy their savings to productive endeavors when there is financial incentive to so (as opposed to sitting on a comparably unproductive stack of PMs in the basement).  However, Wall Street receives the same preferential treatment even when it is not investing any of its own savings.

Furthermore, there are extremely perverse incentives built into the system favoring debt over equity financing. The little guy gets enticed to go out and borrow huge sums of money for a house he can't afford, and then to increase the money supply by converting the equity built up over time into additional debt. In addition to those perverse incentives, the medium income earners are enticed to promote the profigacy of the federal and municipal governments through preferential tax treatment of their debt instruments. As one climbs higher on the wealth pyramid, there are ever increasing opportunities for tax minimization and the perverse perpetuation of the profligate political ponzi.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 00:46 | 2978837 Incubus
Incubus's picture

jesus; who would've thought that the trailer park states would have better income equality than the states where people actually want to be in.

 

holy shit, this report just blew my mind.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 02:47 | 2978985 Lord Koos
Lord Koos's picture

Perhaps residents of the "blue states" have a more generous, community-mnded spirit than 99% of ZH commentators.  Just sayin

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 02:55 | 2978998 vato poco
vato poco's picture

OK, sunshine, maybe you're right. Let's look at a couple of famous examples, shall we? Let's total up all the charitable contributions of the red-state/blue state  political swine of the instant. The Bushes and the Romneys reported charity vs.the reported charity of the Obamas, Gores, Bidens, and I'll be a sport and even throw in the superrich Hunts....er, "Kerry's". Would you like to bet which group outcharities the other by a factor of at least 5x?

Just sayin'.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 04:18 | 2979046 Lord Koos
Lord Koos's picture

You're talking about the 1%.   In the case of the multi-millionaires, I'd also look closely into which charities get supported by which people.

In terms of regular citizens, it's well documented that the less well-off donate the largest percentage of their money to charitable causes.  As of 2010 Detroit was the number one city for charitable contributions. 

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 08:34 | 2979217 bourbondave
bourbondave's picture

double post

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 08:22 | 2979218 bourbondave
bourbondave's picture

You just made his point.  The whole point of the article was that the lesser well off states were republican.

 

Also, to your detroit comment, source?

 

http://philanthropy.com/article/Generosity-in-Americas-50/133675/

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 08:18 | 2979206 bourbondave
bourbondave's picture

Its very generous to steal from others.  If they are so community-minded, then why not just give their money to the govt rather than force others to?

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 03:05 | 2979004 XXL66
XXL66's picture

Or like George Carlin said: "maybe it is just the people who suck"

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 03:48 | 2979029 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

I'll question that thought in 5-6 hours. New York  option cut....

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 05:57 | 2979100 ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

If you have money you vote for the status quo.

If you are getting "stuff" from the gubbermint you vote for the man in da' house.

I'd bet 4% of Americans really have a grasp of what is going on; the rest are bleating and mooing.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 05:58 | 2979101 BadKiTTy
BadKiTTy's picture

'You didnt vote for that"

 

K@

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 08:17 | 2979203 bourbondave
bourbondave's picture

It isn't that complicated and isn't contradictory at all.  Many of these same "wealthy" states are also the one's where peoples job's are most closely tied to government generosity.  Maryland and Virginia for example are full of gov't workers and industries supported by govt with very high paying jobs.  So, for them, the parasitic decision is "is it better to hvae my income taxed more or have no income at all?"

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 08:33 | 2979242 dolly madison
dolly madison's picture

This agrees with my personal experience.  When I was living in Silicon Valley making a fat salary I was surrounded by liberals.  Now that I live in the middle of nowhere surrounded by people on government assistance in one form or another I am surrounded by conservatives. 

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 08:56 | 2979289 Northeaster
Northeaster's picture

2008 was my last days here:

http://www.louriecutler.com/

Average income of clients: $32 million

I did not go to Harvard, I'm not Jewish and I'm "unenrolled" (don't believe in Party's), I'm also no longer there.

Wed, 11/14/2012 - 11:48 | 2979866 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

My karma tells me
  You`ve been screwed again.
If you let them do it to you
You`ve got yourself to blame.
It`s you who feels the pain
It`s you that feels ashamed.

 

"Dirty Jobs" - Quadrophenia, The Who

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!