NYC about to become one of the Most patriotic city in US

[jocoshock]

Why do I find myself only feeling sorry for Maggie, his wife, and the other 23 conservatives in NYC?

At least my (our) love of country cannot be contested.

Maggie,

I've always been under the assumption that there was a decent contingent of Republicans in NYC? I mean the place does happen to be the financial epicenter of our country, if not the world. Down here in flyover country, business/accounting/finance is dominated by conservatives, and I guess I always presumed that to be the case across the country- including NYC.

Not too many dems coming out of b-schools, if you know what I mean. Oil and water.

High income voters -- those who said they make at least $100,000 a year -- went in Obama's favor, 52 percent to 47 percent.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/04/exit.polls/

ABC News just had this interesting item from the exit polls. McCain’s tax scares aren’t working. Enough people agree with me in voting for what is best for the country as opposed to worrying about paying slightly more in taxes. Voters earning over $200,000 per year backed Obama 53 percent to 45 percent. (Besides, I figure that a stronger economy is more important in making money than a minor difference in tax rates).

This correlates with other numbers given earlier showing that white college educated voters went for Obama.

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=5701

Moving On Up: The Democrats Go Upscale In 2008

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/080117nj1.htm

Flash forward to 2008. Obama received majorities among voters who made less than $50,000 and more than $150,000, and a slight 51-48 majority among those earning $75,000-100,00. (This may reflect the decided 58-40 pro-Obama tilt of professors, lawyers, teachers, and others with postgraduate degrees).

Obama sought to appeal to the working class and middle class by emphasizing tax cuts for everyone who made less than $250,000. Not only did this appeal fail (with the exception of the $75,000-100,000 group, who were probably motivated by liberal idealism), but Obama was also more likely to be supported by the upper income groups he promised to tax rather than by the middle class whose taxes he promised to cut.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-11-06/obama-didnt-really-change-anything/

Damn that Google things works!
:lol:

[shocrates]

Nice sources, you left out the Daily Kos and the Huffington Post.

[jocoshock]

Nice sources, you left out the Daily Kos and the Huffington Post.

So you read those!!! I knew it.... You have latent liberal tendencies....

8)

[ShockerPrez]

Just because rich people voted for Obama doesn't mean that higher taxes are good for the country.

The more money rich people have to piss away, the better. Even if it is to buy another gulfstream. Some workers have to build those planes. Some waitress is getting a nice tip on their $100 meal every night. The economy is better served when less of it goes to Washington.

And just because rich people voted for Obama doesn't mean they are going to pay more taxes. A lot of rich people don't earn an income. They just have money. There is a difference. If I have a million dollars in tax free muni bonds, guess what, you can raise the income tax rate to 80% and I still ain't payin' any taxes.

[shocrates]

Like Martha Stewart, (an Obama supporter) says, "Suck it In".

[jocoshock]

Just because rich people voted for Obama doesn't mean that higher taxes are good for the country.

The more money rich people have to piss away, the better. Even if it is to buy another gulfstream. Some workers have to build those planes. Some waitress is getting a nice tip on their $100 meal every night. The economy is better served when less of it goes to Washington.

And just because rich people voted for Obama doesn't mean they are going to pay more taxes. A lot of rich people don't earn an income. They just have money. There is a difference. If I have a million dollars in tax free muni bonds, guess what, you can raise the income tax rate to 80% and I still ain't payin' any taxes.

Valid points as long as the theory of Trickle Down economics is in effect. Problem is we have replaced Trickle Down with Trickle Out. After those Gulfstream jobs are outsourced to another country, the only jobs left will be the waitress jobs.

I was simply providing Ricky Bobby the links that Maggie didn't have time to provide. Not saying high taxes are good. Your points about rich folks not paying taxes are exactly why all the panic over 3% higher marginal tax rates is just so much hysteria. The effective rates people pay are much lower, and less intrusive then everyone makes them out to be.

:shock: :shock: :shock:

[ShockerPrez]

I just have a problem with taking from producers and giving it to the non-producers.

Why don't we have a wealth tax, where people pay property taxes on their money and investments. To me that seems much fairer. The George Soros' and Warren Buffets, who seem to think that taxes are a good thing can pony up a % of their wealth every year, just like I have to pay taxes on my modest property. That would incentivise people to spend. Spending would be a tax deduction! The economy would boom.

[rayc]

Just to correct a misconception on Biden's statement, it was NEVER about companies moving money off shore. That is total BS. Still manufacturing excuses for every mistake of his... jeez the election is over, or is the rewrite of history just beginning?

The context of Biden comments was that companies who hide their money in off shore accounts are unpatriotic. Frankly I don't think tax cheats have too much of a claim to patriotism and find it kind of astounding that a V.P. candidate would suggest otherwise.

Here is a link to the quote below:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/18/biden-wealthy-americans-must-pay-more-taxes-to-show-patriotism/

In an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America," Biden said wealthier taxpayers would indeed pay more under the proposals of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. Under his plan, people earning more than $250,000 a year would pay more in taxes while those earning less -- the vast majority of American taxpayers -- would receive a tax cut.
"We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people," Biden said. Of those who would pay more, he said: "It's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut."

And a link to the video of the interview question itself-

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

[MadaboutWu]

[quote="rayc"]Just to correct a misconception on Biden's statement, it was NEVER about companies moving money off shore. That is total BS. Still manufacturing excuses for every mistake of his... jeez the election is over, or is the rewrite of history just beginning?



You don't need to get so worked up. It was a long campaign and Biden said things on the issues several times, some of which mentioned moving money off shore. Here is a quote from the vice presidential debate:

The bottom line here is that we are going to, in fact, eliminate those wasteful spending that exist in the budget right now, a number of things I don't have time, because the light is blinking, that I won't be able to mention, but one of which is the $100 billion tax dodge that, in fact, allows people to take their post office box off- shore, avoid taxes.
I call that unpatriotic. I call that unpatriotic.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/02/debate.transcript/

[SHOCKvalue]

Damn that Google things works!
:lol:

Not really. Where did I mention anything about wealth, income, or class in my post? There're plenty of stupid, uneducated people with money who fell arse-backwards into it.

Why don't you get back to enlightening us all by inferring that WSU alums are poor, white trash:

The Dems rely on the poor, homeless, welfare recipients etc to continue to support those wonderful programs that have served them so effectively all these years.

You're kind of describing WSU alumni. Funny how the schools enrollment skyrocketed when WU became WSU. It's relied on the poor kids who needed cheap, state subsidized tuition to get an education. Parents were too shiftless or lazy to make enough money to send them elsewhere. Had to stay home and work at Spangles because they couldn't afford to live in a dorm.

BTW, I saw the articles and polls you linked/quoted several days ago, but thanks for the newsflash.

[Maggie]

Why do I find myself only feeling sorry for Maggie, his wife, and the other 23 conservatives in NYC?

At least my (our) love of country cannot be contested.

Maggie,

I've always been under the assumption that there was a decent contingent of Republicans in NYC? I mean the place does happen to be the financial epicenter of our country, if not the world. Down here in flyover country, business/accounting/finance is dominated by conservatives, and I guess I always presumed that to be the case across the country- including NYC.

Not too many dems coming out of b-schools, if you know what I mean. Oil and water.

I can expand on this a great deal if you like (your impressions are off base – although I don’t fault you for them) – I just don’t have the time now. Let me know if you want me to continue.

Go for it... I'm curious as to what you have to say.

I was under the impression that Ricky Bobby was curious about the political make up of NYC.

You have to keep in mind that the city consists of five distinct boroughs – Manhattan, The Bronx, Brooklyn, Staten Island and Queens. The majority of voters in NYC are registered with the Democratic Party – if had to guess it would be well over 60%. The Republican Party in NYC is largley inept. That is not to say that Republican canidates don’t get elected to office from time to time it is just they tend to be what is commonly called Rockefeller Republicans, i.e. La Guardia, Lindsay and the current mayor Bloomberg – while he was first elected a Republian he is now an Independent. Giuliani may have been a bit of an exception; however, Giuliani would not be considered a conservative Republican.

NYC consists, to this day, of large voting blocs – for example, ethinic groups, union members, city employees, religious groups, etc. New York polititians tend to pander to whatever particular bloc or blocs seems to be most fractious during any given election period. As a result, the differences between Democrat and Republican (if there are any) canidates are often hard to find – and their policies are always left of center. In fact, an argument could be made that there is no effective two party system in NYC.

The fact that NYC, and Manhattan in particular, is the economic hub of the United States has no impact on these voting blocs. Conservatives in NYC are few and far between.