Ah the irony of presidential politics
Ok, So let’s get this straight. The top of the income scale has done just fine under President Obama, the president who bailed out their banks and auto companies. His administration has kept taxes at 50-year lows for the wealthy. The Dow has come roaring back under his administration. Yet, the one-percent, or two-percent, or ten-percent or whatever you think is the top income cutoff express little but contempt for the president. These people, who have done so well under his tenure, are voting against him and for Mitt Romney.
The middle and lower end of the U.S. income spectrum has, for the most part, borne the burden of the foundering economy. It is their jobs that have vanished, their children who can’t pay back their college loans or have been priced out of higher education. But these folks, the 47 percent or whatever you wish to label them, are willing to vote to give Obama a second term.
Then there are the moocher or taker states, the ones that receive more federal money than they generate in federal taxes. These are mostly the red states of the Old Confederacy. These people are supported by the blue states of the two coasts and the upper Great Lakes, the states that send more tax money to Washington, D.C. than they get back in federal benefits. This is the major redistribution of the tax system. So polls show that the voters of the red, moocher or taker states are voting for Romney and the provider or maker states are going for Obama. Is that about it?