Election Map shift to blue

[Eric5273]

The NY Times today published this map:



What it represents is the shift between 2004 and 2008. Blue indicates a strong shift towards Democrats while Red (if there was any on the map) would indicate a strong shift towards the Republicans. White means the results were the same as in 2004. I guess this map pretty much tells the whole story. Other than a couple of states, the Democrats did better in every state, even the ones that they did not win.

[MrLabGuy]

Originally Posted by Eric5273

The NY Times today published this map:



What it represents is the shift between 2004 and 2008. Blue indicates a strong shift towards Democrats while Red (if there was any on the map) would indicate a strong shift towards the Republicans. White means the results were the same as in 2004. I guess this map pretty much tells the whole story. Other than a couple of states, the Democrats did better in every state, even the ones that they did not win.

Yep...More Americans are looking for the government to give them a hand-out instead of a hand-up. What happened to "Ask not what your Country can do for you but what you can do for your Country" I'm pretty sure JFK was not talking about people actually doing something to paying more taxes so those doing less get a check from the government.

Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better and that seems to be reflected in the markets.

[Eric5273]

Originally Posted by MrLabGuy

I'm pretty sure JFK was not talking about people actually doing something to paying more taxes so those doing less get a check from the government.

When JFK was president, the top income tax bracket was 91%. When Nixon was elected, being such a big conservative, he lowered it to 77%.

Obama is talking about raising it to 39.6%. How times have changed. I think the term "high taxes" does not mean what it once did.

[Wagner]

8 years of War will generally do that to a party. Glad to see we're still hell bent on a 2 party system

[MrLabGuy]

Originally Posted by Eric5273

When JFK was president, the top income tax bracket was 91%. When Nixon was elected, being such a big conservative, he lowered it to 77%.

Obama is talking about raising it to 39.6%. How times have changed. I think the term "high taxes" does not mean what it once did.

LOL...You just made my argument Eric. Back when JFK and Nixon were president there were a LOT less people with money to tax. Since the top tax rate was lowered America added millions more to the ranks of wealthy and in fact the Federal Government was able to collect more cash with a lower tax rate. Jobs were created and wealth flowed.

You're idea of transferring more wealth to the government will only strangle the economy more than it already has.

[Eric5273]

Originally Posted by MrLabGuy

Since the top tax rate was lowered America added millions more to the ranks of wealthy....

....at the expense of the middle class, thus dramatically increasing the number of people living in poverty. (just finishing the thought )

[StanF18]

Ah yes, another nostalgic "redistribution of wealth" vs. "Trickle-down economics" showdown. Seems to me that both systems are doomed to failure when taken to their utmost extreme.

Trickle-down?? In 1989, for instance, U.S. CEOs of large companies earned 71 times more than the average worker, according to the Economic Policy Institute. By last year (2007), that gap ratio was at 270x. And that 270-fold gap doesn't even include the value of the many free perks CEOs receive, which averaged $450,000, nor does it include CEO pension benefits. So I guess "trickle-down" sounds good in theory, except that someone forgot to tell the friggin' CEOs to keep up with the trickling-down. Although, occasionally a small drop of piss still lands on some blue-collar worker's head, as evidenced here :

http://www.theonion.com/content/news..._trickles_down

On the other (scarier) side, this economic slump is the perfect fodder for our resident Socialist-Marxists to call for an end to profit margins, private enterprise, and basically stifle any semblance of incentive and reward.

I say: let's do the right thing....and take the Exxon Mobil executive biatches down a notch....close corporate loopholes.... and institute true pay-for-performance metrics for CEOs and CFOs. These executives are very keen on such metrics for their underlings, but somehow still draw handsome rewards and obscene bonuses even as their own "ships" are nose-diving like the Titanic.

It's also obscene that we are the ONLY western industrialized nation on the planet, that drowns critically ill people in non-stop bills, denial-of-coverage letters from insurance carriers, and collection agency threats....instead of allowing these citizens to concentrate on getting better. It's astonishing, that even the folks who ARE insured have to go through this mess of paperwork and denial-of-coverage every time they or a family member go though a serious health problem. No other democracy on Earth allows its' sick citizens to be put through the financial wringer like this. Insurance and HMO companies should all be investigated, and their executives prosecuted for fraud, corruption, wrongful death, and negligence. This health-care mess is bankrupting millions of American families every year. We should be ashamed of ourselves.