IT WOULD BE GREAT TO JUST READ THE NEWS....AND LEAVE ALL OF THE RIGHT WING, LEFT WING BULLS*** OUT!! MOST OF US HAVE A BRAIN...WE CAN FIGURE THINGS OUT ALL BY OURSELVES. AND PLEASE IF YOU ARE GOING TO WRITE A "SLANTED" STORY....PLEASE UP FRONT JUST ADDRESS WHOSE SIDE YOU ARE ON TO BEGIN WITH...IT WILL BE MUCH APPRECIATED BY ALL OF US!!
What Are Rich People Thinking?
-
Posted By: cheapercargreg @ 11/10/2008 9:30:05 PM
-
Posted By: claypoint2 @ 11/10/2008 9:30:05 PM
What's the matter with Greenwich? Perhaps that a bunch of smart, successful people got tired of watching an incompetent administration f**k up the country and the rest of the world.
-
Posted By: physics teacher @ 11/10/2008 8:58:16 PM
Recent studies have shown that the professors' political opinions did NOT change the beliefs of their students. I will cite the source if you wish.
-
Posted By: dschneck @ 11/10/2008 8:25:54 PM
What were they thinking? Perhaps it had something to do with the fact that if a party can't run an election campaign, then maybe that party isnt fit to run a country. They were thinking President Palin. They were thinking of their now "201" k's. They were thinking that the republicans wanted to privatize social security not that long ago. And they were probably thinking that it is better to have someone as President who can maintain an even keel, who made a reasonable choice in running mate, and who has an analytical mind. They were voting with their wallets, my friend. Dont kid yourself. Their wallets are suffering already under the current administration, and if they think there is someone who is capable of making the economy better, then they will prosper too.
-
Posted By: dschneck @ 11/10/2008 8:25:49 PM
What were they thinking? Perhaps it had something to do with the fact that if a party can't run an election campaign, then maybe that party isnt fit to run a country. They were thinking President Palin. They were thinking of their now "201" k's. They were thinking that the republicans wanted to privatize social security not that long ago. And they were probably thinking that it is better to have someone as President who can maintain an even keel, who made a reasonable choice in running mate, and who has an analytical mind. They were voting with their wallets, my friend. Dont kid yourself. Their wallets are suffering already under the current administration, and if they think there is someone who is capable of making the economy better, then they will prosper too.
-
Posted By: rcowling @ 11/10/2008 7:55:28 PM
Another of what I am sure will be four years of another liberal writer from another liberal rag writing to it's liberal (tax cut benafactors) readers that the rich voted Obama in. Pardon my expression, but that is rich.
-
Posted By: rcowling @ 11/10/2008 7:51:39 PM
Another of what I am sure will be 4 years of liberal writers from liberal rags telling it's liberal readers that the rich voted Obama in. Pardon the expression, but that is rich.
-
Posted By: Quirk22 @ 11/10/2008 6:07:20 PM
Based on the stock market I'd say those rich wall street types have cast their vote on the Obama administration. Dow is down 600 since we had a president-elect Obama.
-
Posted By: olderwiser @ 11/10/2008 7:39:47 PM
Lotsa possibilities. One could be that they saw where so many fell through that bridge in Minnesota and just figured that it might take a few taxes to get home from the office safely. You know, fix the roads and bridges. Things like that.
-
Posted By: mrjungles @ 11/10/2008 7:46:24 PM
'Fix the roads and bridges...' You're talkin' crazy talk!
-
-
-
Posted By: Tea6 @ 11/10/2008 3:38:57 PM
The real wonder is why the beltway Republicans spend all their time carrying water for the wealthy while ignoring the economic needs of the middle class, who are the GOP base. Meanwhile, Obama is moving in to fill the vacuum.
-
Posted By: Quirk22 @ 11/10/2008 3:47:23 PM
You realize that Bush gave EVERYBODY a tax cut - not just the wealthy. More people pay zero federal taxes now than when Bush first took office.
-
Posted By: Tea6 @ 11/10/2008 4:02:10 PM
Yea, but the policies the GOP pursued caused middle class incomes to decline (in a recovery), while the incomes of the wealth top 1% skyrocketed. So basically, the Washington Republicans are currying favor with a group of people who vote against them, while the economic situation of their base is undermined. These people are not the sharpest tools in the tool shed.
-
Posted By: Quirk22 @ 11/10/2008 5:13:29 PM
Exactly what policies are are those? And since the Senate and Congress are both Democrat how could he, singlehandedly, achieve such an imbalance?
-
Posted By: Tea6 @ 11/10/2008 7:45:51 PM
Off-shoring, outsourcing and encouragement of illegal workers. These have helped to push wages down and were policies of Bush or the GOP congress. Clinton signed NAFTA, but he would not have brought it up if there was not GOP control of Congress.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: awain69 @ 11/10/2008 3:54:45 PM
Dear Red States:
We've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and
we're taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren't aware,
that includes California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota,
Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, and all the Northeast. We believe this
split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of
the new country of New California.
To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states. We
get stem cell research and the best beaches. We get the Statue of
Liberty You get Dollywood. We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom.
We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss. We get 85 percent of America's
venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get Alabama. We get two-thirds of
the tax revenue, you get to make the red states pay their fair share.
Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian
Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single
moms and divorces up the wazoo. Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war, and we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at
once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids
they're apparently willing to send to their deaths for no purpose, and
they don't care if you don't show pictures of their children's caskets
coming home. We do wish you success in Iraq, and hope that the WMDs turn
up, but we're not willing to spend our resources in Bush's Quagmire.
With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of
the country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and
lettuce, 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of America's
quality wines, 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech
industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods,
sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools plus
Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT. With the Red States, on the other hand,you
will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans (and their
projected health care costs), 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly
100 percent of the tornadoes, 90 percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent
of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists,
Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson, and the University of
Georgia . We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.
Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was
actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless
we're discussing the war, the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say
that evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in
9/11 and 61 percent of you arrogant people believe you are people with
higher morals then we lefties.-
Posted By: Dave in NM @ 11/10/2008 4:09:59 PM
What a great read. Now why didn't we just let the South secede, again? It couldn't have been just the tobacco and cotton, but seriously - what else do/did they have to offer?
-
Posted By: luckylarry @ 11/10/2008 4:27:11 PM
Fine, we will attack you and take all your stuff. while you sit and watch.
-
Posted By: mcleodmn @ 11/10/2008 4:30:49 PM
How? Are you going to throw bibles at us?
-
Posted By: Quirk22 @ 11/10/2008 5:09:35 PM
The nukes are in redland - as are all the major military instillations.
Just saying.-
Posted By: mcleodmn @ 11/10/2008 5:25:22 PM
Nukes are launched from from DC.
-
Posted By: Quirk22 @ 11/10/2008 5:57:25 PM
good luck with that.
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Quirk22 @ 11/10/2008 4:28:02 PM
No one could accuse you of being gracious in victory.
-
-
Posted By: Untwestnd @ 11/10/2008 4:27:08 PM
Best laugh I've had all day! Thanks. You forgot to mention a sense of humor, which seems to be seriously lacking in some people posting.
-
Posted By: mcleodmn @ 11/10/2008 4:27:06 PM
Yay!!! I can't wait. I live in Seattle(North New California).
-
Posted By: jerzyboy349 @ 11/10/2008 4:07:06 PM
awain69: What a smug, elitist pig. What you need is another 9/11. Apparently, the first one didn't humble you quite enough.
-
Posted By: aduncan2 @ 11/10/2008 4:22:09 PM
eww. that is a horrible thing to say. You should be ashamed of your self.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: nickgr @ 11/10/2008 7:42:15 PM
Reps have fundamental problems... It is not just the pendulum or cyclical transitions...
They are out of ideological ammunition & out of personalities...
No Ideas,Rea-guns...
They must fight for a Constitutional Amendment to allow Arnold to trun for president.
As for the MBA/Ph.D rich I agree...
They have been affected by "intellectual " college bs against capitalism...
-
Posted By: Young Hickory @ 11/10/2008 1:44:08 PM
Is it inconceivable to think that money is not the sole determinated of voters selection? The way Republicans have trampled on individual liberties and the constitution it is surprising that this election was not more lopsided. Individual liberty is at the core of any pursuit of happiness. Without the constitution we are in danger of becoming a Russian style oligarchy where the head of state can confiscate anyone's wealth on a whim. Progressive taxation benefits all by maintaining a middle class, something that totalitarian state like Russia lacks and which is the backbone of democracy. It is extremely shortsighted in particular to sell our birth right for a few crumbs that the Bush tax cute threw our way. Besides, most people are realistic enough to know that further tax cuts are simply a deferred tax that we are placing on our descendants.
-
Posted By: A Midwest Mom @ 11/10/2008 4:52:06 PM
By the way, the popular vote in this election was closer for McCain/Obama than for Bush/Kerry. In the last election when this happened and a Republican won there was all this talk about how deeply divided the nation was and how Bush had better be aware that the whole nation was not with him. Now that a Democrat has won by an even narrower margin we hear nothing of this?
Also it is ridiculous and insulting to asssume that because someone does not advocate the murder of unborn citizens and the making of Laws by the supreme court that they are somehow not intellectual?
Please remember that 50% of the country did not vote for Obama and that wanting to preserve legislation for legislators elected by the people and not appointed judges and the rights of citizens at every stage of life does not mean a lack of intellect. The people you spoke of will not pay more taxes under the Democrats because unlike the lower to middle class, they can afford the accountants to help them find every loophole! Don't you think they know this?! Yes those of us, poor to middle class with children to support who are finally just climbing up and getting on solid ground may have it snatched out from under
us now but not because we didn't try. we are part of the nearly 50% who voted for McCain.-
Posted By: tile00 @ 11/10/2008 5:09:07 PM
where do you get your numbers? obama overran mccain in the popular vote 65.9M to 57.7M while bush beat kerry by 62M-59M...and the electoral college was a landslide! get your head out of your red state and look around you.
and i like the typical legislate from the bench hogwash that republicans use when court decisions go against you. just because you don't agree with the court decision, didn't mean the court legislated from the bench. live with it...its called a check against another branch. so under your view brown v. the board of education was not a valid decision, right? courts should not review and overturn laws that are passed regardless of what that law says...right? separate by equal is completely acceptable in a free society? yes? what? speak up...i can't hear you...
that's what i thought....-
Posted By: A Midwest Mom @ 11/10/2008 5:48:29 PM
EnWe need to vote in legislators who will make laws that will overturn segregationist policies or what ever policies that we want to see changed. That's "We the people". Using courts to invent new laws instead of interpret the laws we have already written is not just in the long run and does not build our constitutional republic. A government "for the people, by the people and of the people" . I meet people everyday as I work on campaigns who haven't the slightest idea how our Republic is designed to work or even that they live in a Constitutional Republic!?
-
Posted By: tile00 @ 11/10/2008 7:39:38 PM
so your solution is to wait potentially YEARS for the underrepresented in our society to be seen as equal under the law? wow one of the fundamental roles of the courts is for everyone to have an opportunity for their issues to be heard whether they are the majority or minority, rich or poor, famous or unknown.
let me take one of the right's favorite issues. guns. the second amendment guarantees this right to "A well regulated militia". This clause is often overlooked by gun rights folks. By any measure, individuals are not a well regulated militia like the police, national guard, state troopers, or any other group that has a command structure and IF STRICTLY interpreted by the courts as you want, would ban every firearm sale to private citizens. However this is not the course that the courts have taken through the years all the way up to DC v Heller that upheld this right overturning a handgun ban in DC. I don't believe that guns should be banned and understand the court's position on this. i don't complain that the court overstepped its authority by both overturning a law passed BY THE PEOPLE as well as ignoring a phrase in the constitution that clearly defines the amendment.
like i said...checks and balances...
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: nickgr @ 11/10/2008 7:14:12 PM
My pre-election comments are ideologically the same as my post -el comments.
I just write...Obi ,instead of Hussein...
I just saw that the economic issues prevailed upon the character issues & that socialistic-type populism...sells...
I also realised that the abortion issue "killed " Palin. & if Reps do not change,they will end up with 100 reps in the South...
They are almost finished in the Northeast & in the big cities.
In such an environment,a centrist Dem ,Baucus-Reid style,can only restrain an increase in socialism,not a reduction of taxes & government...
-
Posted By: Jennifer Cole @ 11/10/2008 5:47:02 PM
Anyone who thinks the mainsteam media "leans left" is simply unfamiliar with Left. Looks who OWNS the media, and ask yourself how liberal can it be?
Point two: "How the rich voted." Who CARES? Better question would be "Why idolize the rich? What have they ever done for you?"-
Posted By: 4astrongamerica @ 11/10/2008 7:12:21 PM
Jennifer...you should take your own advice. I have lloked at who owns the media and maybe you should as well before you make such a misinformed post. I will give you a head start on the research. CBS/Viacom, Sumner Redstone - HUGE DEMOCRAT, ABC / Disney, Robert Iger - HUGE DEMOCRAT, NBC, Jeff Zucker - HUGE DEMOCRAT, Jeffrey Immelt - former Republican...most recently known as a "liberal darling", Turner Broadcasting / CNN, You guessed it!
-
Posted By: ppenguin95 @ 11/10/2008 6:01:14 PM
Jennifer, I agree, look at who owns the media. Also, look at who the media has supported in the past elections. Also, look at the reporting. Whenever a news piece came out about something bad about Obama it was downplayed and mentioned once or twice and that was it. On the other side, when a story would come out about McCain that was bad for him, it was reported over and over and over again. That is the media leaning to the left. They report positive news about the Democrats heavily, report negative reports very few times and the reverse for the Republicans. It is not what responsible media is or should be.
-
Posted By: RavenMaven @ 11/10/2008 5:56:38 PM
Jennifer, You my dear have much to learn.
-
Posted By: mcleodmn @ 11/10/2008 6:00:59 PM
Au Contraire, Mon Fraire!
-
-
-
Posted By: olderwiser @ 11/10/2008 7:07:47 PM
I told you over and over again that the pendulum rules and that gravity pulls it down when it goes too far in either direction and that it was going to pull back left and you just wouldn't listen. When it's time to change directions even rich people will vote for more taxes in order to follow the rules dictated by simple gravity. You might as well forget all of this emotional reaction to the election. It will go back in your direction one day, just as it did this time, when gravity sees that the pendulum went too far left. Be patient, and quit moaning.
-
Posted By: Auzziebird @ 11/10/2008 7:03:35 PM
Combined, my husband and I make 275/annually, excluding fringe benefits and bonuses! We voted for Obama. My husband has a Ph.D. and I'm a high school graduate. Our choice of Obama had nothing to do with how much we make, or how electing Obama was going to affect our tax return. We voted for Obama because he was the right man for the job at the right time. At least, we hope so. Time will tell! If we have to pay more taxes because of it...well, so be it!
-
Posted By: nickgr @ 11/10/2008 6:01:15 PM
When Palin was selected,the Rep duo were ahead in the polls for 1-2 weeks.
Then Palin tanked & the transient vote went to Obama,
More & more people actually vote with beauty contest criteria & then try to rationalise them.
Obama is a fascinating person & pops was a "has-been".
So simple-
Posted By: Hannah B @ 11/10/2008 6:54:34 PM
What could have possibly happened to make you so enlightened? Either that or the nickgr pre-election of this one post-election is an imposter. I recall that your thinking used to be quite bigoted ... whassup?
-
Posted By: whatisreal? @ 11/10/2008 6:44:26 PM
Well [put!
-
-
Posted By: tbinenstock @ 11/10/2008 6:42:11 PM
More like white guilt. People are made to feel guilty for earning a good living and instead of being generous and givign of their time and money, they simply vote everyone a big tax increase. I hope they feel better on the unemployment line.
-
Posted By: Centrist Guy @ 11/10/2008 6:41:27 PM
Midwest Mom- you've been lied to. Increasing personal income tax has nothing to do with corporations and in no way effects the price of gas. But if we are going to talk about Corporate tax rates, it should be noted that loopholes in the U.S. outnumber any other country, and consequently our corporations pay very little tax. Gas is expensive because energy companies set the price that high, not because they have to, but because they want to in order to make massive profits. Is that wrong? I don't think so, but it doesn't effect my views on whether or not the wealthy should be responsible for paying slightly more in taxes than the average struggling American like yourself.
-
Posted By: nickgr @ 11/10/2008 6:25:58 PM
Oops,Obama won the primaries due to activists,indies carpetbaggers & idiot Reps who wanted Hillary out.
Now they got Obama & they fume thru the...
Hillary is the moral winner within the Dems. She won the big 4,LA,TX.FL.NY.
Id she got the nomination she would fly at 55%...
-
Posted By: Doublepops @ 11/10/2008 6:22:00 PM
Looked at your portfolio lately? Have a clue about effective vs. marginal rates? Ever seen the market react to consumer confidence? Any concept that the cost of capital may be more important to businesses most of whom aren't making a profit right now and therefore have no income to tax, than tax rates?
Check out this list: Out of control, deficit-funded federal spending on unnecessary or badly managed wars, health care costs that are a global competitive disadvantage, middle class=consumer class=most of the customers of the companies that the wealthy own equity in facing declining real spending power.
Any of that good for your portfolio?
The truly wealthy have far more at stake in the performance of the equity markets than in the top marginal income tax on their salary income. They have tax advisors, tax deferred accts and will leave large capital gains to their heirs. Having the government sucking $500B to $1.5T this year out of the capital market is not good for business.
Report Abuse
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
- Black Friday should unleash pent-up demand. Analyst Bill DreherNYT
- The task is to restore our conservative bona fides James Bopp Jr. on a 10-pt GOP checklist NYT
- Twenty five years feels right in my bones and right in my spirit. Oprah on ending her showCST
- It’s going to be a holy war Orrin Hatch on debate over the Senate health billNYT
- The nation and the world will see him for the coward he is Holder, on trying KSMAP
Discuss