Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

Obama Wins 8 of 10 Wealthiest Counties in US

Posted by   + Show Post

In an election that often focused on debates about class warfare, President Barack Obama was favored over multimillionaire businessman Mitt Romney in eight of the nation's 10 wealthiest counties.

And his margin of victory in all eight counties was greater than that of the national vote, in which Obama was leading by 50 percent to 48 percent with 97 percent of precincts reporting.

The findings are based on a CNBC.com analysis of Census Bureau numbers on average annual household income from 2006-2011 and results from Tuesday's elections. (Read More Below the Chart)

The 10 richest counties accounted for 1,337,700 votes, or about 1.1 percent of the national popular vote. 

In the richest, Massachusetts' Nantucket County, where average annual household income is over $137,000, Obama won by 63 percent to Romney's 36 percent with all precincts reporting. The richest county in Romney's home state is also where, just prior to accepting the Republican nomination, the former Massachusetts governor held a$75,000-per-person dinner fundraiser.

In none of the richest counties was the margin of victory wider than in California's Marin County, just north of San Francisco, where the president won by 74 percent to 23 percent, with all precincts reporting. In Marin, the average annual household income is $128,544.


The two richest counties where Romney won were in New Jersey: adjacent Hunterdon and Morris counties in the northern part of the state. Romney won in Morris by 55 percent to 44 percent and in Hunterdon by 59 percent to 40 percent. However, Somerset County, which abuts Hunterdon and Morris, went to Obama by 53 percent to 47 percent.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama-wins-8-10-wealthiest-154837437.html

by on Nov. 7, 2012 at 9:50 PM
Replies (11-20):
queencreekmom
by Member on Nov. 8, 2012 at 10:36 AM
I have only 2 friends that are on any kind of assistance. One is on WIC and the other gets Medicare. Both vote republican. I keep telling them they are voting against their own interests. All of my democrat friends are very well educated with multiple degrees, own their homes and have good jobs. It's not a coincidence that the richest states with the highest levels of education vote democrat.
Sisteract
by Socialist Hippie on Nov. 8, 2012 at 10:39 AM

You do realize that the those at the very tip top support policies that make it difficult for America to have a middleman- This is part of the reason our economy is trash- the # of middlemen has decreased, drastically.  Without the gainfully employed, revenue paying middlemen to support those at the bottom and to offset the advantage$ of those at the top {those you mentioned  in your post}, our economy does NOT hum and we can not pay the bills without additional debt. So why do so many support the very folks who endorse policies that continue to compromise and eliminate the middleman? It's a bipartisan problem and CONGRESS is at the root.

Quoting Canvas_says:

Let's be real here any tax increases aren't really going to hurt the rich. They are only going to hurt their employees. If you have money, you will still have it tomorrow. It's the middleman that doesn't have much to hold onto. 


Canvas_says
by Silver Member on Nov. 8, 2012 at 10:43 AM
2 moms liked this

I realize that the employers in this country are taxed to death, and with the Republicans looking to cut those tax rates to 25%, and the other side disagreeing and keeping them at 35% we can not compete in this country. Tack on more unnecessary taxes such as the Obama-care which Republicans weren't even involved in at all and the results are more job loss, more overseas transactions. It's not always a bipartisan failure when one party took over complete control and locked out the other party,

Quoting Sisteract:

You do realize that the those at the very tip top support policies that make it difficult for America to have a middleman- This is part of the reason our economy is trash- the # of middlemen has decreased, drastically.  Without the gainfully employed, revenue paying middlemen to support those at the bottom and to offset the advantage$ of those at the top {those you mentioned  in your post}, our economy does NOT hum and we can not pay the bills without additional debt. So why do so many support the very folks who endorse policies that continue to compromise and eliminate the middleman? It's a bipartisan problem and CONGRESS is at the root.

Quoting Canvas_says:

Let's be real here any tax increases aren't really going to hurt the rich. They are only going to hurt their employees. If you have money, you will still have it tomorrow. It's the middleman that doesn't have much to hold onto. 



MsDenuninani
by Bronze Member on Nov. 8, 2012 at 11:00 AM
4 moms liked this

Not shocking.

I've read that the rich generally favor Republicans -- they see taxes as an obstacle to wealth. 

But the really, really rich favor Democrats -- they see taxes more as a side effect of wealth.

It's like, once you make crazy money, taxes just aren't an issue to you anymore, so you vote for personal values over self-interest. 

ms-superwoman
by Bronze Member on Nov. 8, 2012 at 12:27 PM

So much for being poor and waiting in the welfare line.

la_bella_vita
by Member on Nov. 8, 2012 at 12:42 PM

 I'm not surprised.

itsmesteph11
by Silver Member on Nov. 8, 2012 at 12:52 PM
3 moms liked this

 I think you libs miss the REAL point. Libs want the rich to pay more out of revenge not for the fact that it will actually help.   Taking every dime frome these millionaires would not put a dent in the debt.  It will however cause them to stop donating, investing, and those with businesses, hiring.  

All of the above being bad for the middleman you so claim to care about.

Quoting Canvas_says:

Let's be real here any tax increases aren't really going to hurt the rich. They are only going to hurt their employees. If you have money, you will still have it tomorrow. It's the middleman that doesn't have much to hold onto. 

 

rccmom
by Gold Member on Nov. 8, 2012 at 12:59 PM

You know, the whole point about jobs would be a bit more believable if they weren't so busy sending jobs overseas. It is hardly about revenge. And, I always wonder, when they talk about taxing the rich, the Repubs always say it is such a small amount of what is needed why bother, but when the Repubs talk about cutting PBS, which is such a small amount it doesn't matter, they are all for it. Neither party wants to cut the big programs, but they are going to have to, and yes, they should increase taxes also. 

Quoting itsmesteph11:

 I think you libs miss the REAL point. Libs want the rich to pay more out of revenge not for the fact that it will actually help.   Taking every dime frome these millionaires would not put a dent in the debt.  It will however cause them to stop donating, investing, and those with businesses, hiring.  

All of the above being bad for the middleman you so claim to care about.

Quoting Canvas_says:

Let's be real here any tax increases aren't really going to hurt the rich. They are only going to hurt their employees. If you have money, you will still have it tomorrow. It's the middleman that doesn't have much to hold onto. 

 


Saerise
by Member on Nov. 8, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Wonder how many of them have off-shore accounts...

timeforprogress
by Bronze Member on Nov. 8, 2012 at 1:25 PM
1 mom liked this

Liberals can look at history, and see that top marginal rates were super high and the middle class grew.  Rates have been going down and so has the growth of the middle class.  Income inequality has grown since the adoption of supply side economics. 

Wealthy people would actually have more incentive to donate, invest, and reinvest in their businesses, because all of these things actually reduce tax liability.  Since taxes have been lowered the wealth at the very top has grown the most while it has shrink for the middle and working class population.

Liberals such as myself did not arrive at their position without having considered all the arguments.  Personally, I have used a combination of my understanding of economics, civics, mathematics, science, history, sociology, and psychology to determine that I currently prefer the Democratic party that embraces science and novel thinking. 

When intellectual liberals such as the President talk about the need for higher taxes at the top it is not because of revenge, but because they believe( based on the historical evidence of the creation of a strong middle class) it will help.  We used our critical thinking skills, and after looking at the evidence we have found that higher marginal rates at the top do not prevent the wealthy from accumulating wealth, don't harm economic growth, put a check on unhealthy greed, and everyone else experiences greater opportunity to move up the social ladder. 

Now I realize we differ on economic views, and that is okay.  That discourse is good to prevent any extremist views to take hold.  Just like compromise is crucial to our romantic relationships it is crucial to governance.  The Democrats aren't asking for 90% top marginal rates. They aren't even asking for 50%.  All they want is in exchange for spending cuts that we raise taxes at the top by less than 5%, close some loopholes that only favor the wealthy, and implement a minimum tax of 30% on the extremely wealthy.  The reason being that this recession has been a burden on the poor and middle classes, but the wealthy are doing better than ever.  Corporate profits are up, commodity prices are high, and the biggest leaches on the government seem safe from cuts (IE corporate welfare).  The liberals are simply asking the wealthy Americans to be patriotic and share in some of the sacrifice.

Quoting itsmesteph11:

 I think you libs miss the REAL point. Libs want the rich to pay more out of revenge not for the fact that it will actually help.   Taking every dime frome these millionaires would not put a dent in the debt.  It will however cause them to stop donating, investing, and those with businesses, hiring.  

All of the above being bad for the middleman you so claim to care about.

Quoting Canvas_says:

Let's be real here any tax increases aren't really going to hurt the rich. They are only going to hurt their employees. If you have money, you will still have it tomorrow. It's the middleman that doesn't have much to hold onto. 

 


Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN