States with Highest Income Inequality Voted for Obama

Curious fact: in 2012, four years after Obama took office the first time, the states that had the absolute highest rates of income inequality voted for Obama (again).

Now, before you commit a fallacy of causation, let me remind you that correlation and causation are two different things. So, the fact that states with high income inequality voted for Obama does not necessarily mean that Obama’s policies (or policies like his) made their situation the way it is. For instance, you could say that Democrat states in general (who would typically have voted for Obama) would suffer from greater income inequality because of Democrat policies.

But you could also say that states with higher income inequality would be more likely to vote for Obama because they, mistakenly, think that Obama will save them.

Not so much, it turns out. Under Obama’s tenure, income inequality has grown substantially worse. Of course, Obama’s faithful drones (the human ones—not the ones killing impoverished goatherds in the desert) blame all of this on Bush.

And I’m sure that if we were experiencing unprecedented economic prosperity, these same Obama faithfuls would be consistent and give Bush the credit. I mean, that’s the magnanimous spirit they displayed when Clinton was president, remember? They blamed Bush and Reagan for our economic prosperity, not Clinton. Right?

And lest you think that Democrat states generally have higher income inequality, you’d be wrong. Most of the states with small income inequality gaps are Democrat. But here’s the rub: income inequality may not be such a bad thing. States with the highest income inequality also have higher median incomes than states with greater economic equality. So Democrat policies do manage to make things more equal—but not by making the poor richer. They succeed only by making the rich poorer, and no one really benefits from this—except Democrat politicians of course.

Why can’t people understand this concept? It seems very straightforward to me. I’m afraid we are living in an American age of mind-numbing idiocy. Congratulations, public school system. You have completed your work. You have created a voting majority of government-dependent half-wits.

122 responses

    • I don’t know if they are or not, but the way your party wants to tax wealthy people into oblivion makes me think thats what they’d like to see. Rich getting poorer, balance it out, make it equal. Yea right

          • do you seriously believe that increasing the top tax rate a couple of points to 39.6% is taxing the rich into oblivion?

          • Oh good Lord. Its official you cant read. I said WANT, not what is happening in actuality. If the radical left had its way they would have a 75% tax rate. If that wasn’t true, there wouldn’t be all this propaganda field with jealousy. Pay their share, greedy rich people, they don’t know suffering, blah blah blah.

          • It was a 70+% tax on businesses that keep us in the great depression. Who can hire a person when the government comes in and takes 70%? That was a very liberal democratic government.

          • This administration knows nothing about economics period. There is a huge difference in a community organizers job and the President’s. Obama is living in the community organizer mindset. He is using 3rd grade math.

          • do you think that the stock market doubled, corporate profits soared to all time highs, the real estate market went up 35% by accident?

          • No, it is because the Fed keeps pumping funny money in to the economy as has been pointed out to your dumb ass over and over. When the Fed stops, watch it drop like a rock MrMalibuBarbieBoobE. They are stealing our wealth by making every dollar worth less and less. Your lying is intolerable and I pity you having to live with yourself.

          • Do you have ANY understanding of economics? The inflation rate is 1.6%! the Fed buys bonds from banks by crediting those banks’ accounts at the Fed with reserves that didn’t exist before. That’s NOT “money printing” because it doesn’t actually do anything to increase the amount of money in circulation.. When a bank lends you money on your credit card, that’s “printing” money. When the government buys bonds from banks, it merely raises the price of that particular type of bond and lowers the interest rate. Lower interest rates might encourage consumers to take out loans, but it won’t actually lead to more money in the system unless banks create money through making loans. That’s why fears that “quantitative easing” will eventually lead to runaway inflation are unfounded. If the government literally began printing money and started mailing out new $100 bills to citizens, that would lead to price inflation. But quantitative easing isn’t the equivalent of mailing out $100 bills — it’s merely the managing of long-term interest rates the same way the Fed always has managed short-term interest rates. For you Low Information dimwits that believe that “Quantitative Easing” is responsible for recent stock market highs Fed bond buying will cause bond prices to be higher and interest rates to be lower, and this will encourage investors to choose stocks over bonds at the margin. But no amount of federal bond buying is going to cause a particular stock to be a good buy if an investor doesn’t think that stock will provide a return. QE may boost profits by reducing the interest rates firms have to pay on their debt, but it’s not going to create profitable enterprises out of this air. If you dipshits had 1/2 a brain you’d realize the reason for record stock prices is that corporate profits and profit margins are at all time highs..

          • Hey MrMalibuBarbieBoobE, just google Quantitative Easing Stock Market and pick one of the dozens of articles that appear saying you are full of shit and a liar.

          • I will believe the plethora of sources I find from outlets I know before I will believe you.

          • Between 1946 and 1974, the economy grew faster than it’s grown since because the nation was creating the largest middle class in history. The overall size of the economy doubled, as did the earnings of almost everyone. In those years, the top marginal tax rate on America’s highest earners never fell below 70 percent & under Republican President Eisenhower the tax rate was 91 percent.

          • The economy growth had nothing to do with tax rate during this time. It had to do with the fact Europe was blown to pieces as well has Japan, much of China, Russian had much damage… We were the only major country that had no real damage and the resource to help other countries build back what they lost. So, we were building and selling much of what we built over seas (one of the best ways to build an economy). The wealth this generated slit over the edge of the cup so to speak and everyone benefited. Including the government ridiculously high tax rates.

            An even equal tax percentage is best… no tax breaks. if everyone paid somewhere between 13 and 18% there would be plenty of money to run current programs and not run continue to run up our debt. And everyone would be contributing their “fair” share, equally percentage wise).

          • You said the 70%+ tax rate caused the depression & are now saying a 91% top rate didn’t get in the way of an economic boom????

          • You have trouble reading don’t you…. I said it was a 70+ % tax on businesses that keep us IN the great depression.

            Then later said The wealth this generated slit (meant split) over the edge of the cup so to speak and everyone benefited…. That meant there was just so much business, no matter what was done, we would do well. However, not surprised you are doing the typical liberal thing, twisting words around to try and change the meanings verse learning and growing.
            By the way, the 91% was on individuals not businesses), and that was not for their full income. Just on a portion over a listed dollar amount earned. The 70% was on businesses that need the money to hire people.

          • So why are wealthy (and some not so wealthy) people leaving the high tax states for the low tax states?

          • 1st of all you said leaving the country. I don’t see an exodus of people leaving Beverly Hills, Manhattan & other rich cities (with high tax rates) to move to low tax rate dumps like South Dakota, Tennessee, Louisiana or Wyoming

          • Strange. All you lying Democrats said the rich were moving jobs overseas. You were dumb enough to even believe the lies that Romney was doing it! Talk about gullible pathetic.

          • The cause is greedy Democrat Wal-Mart shoppers who seem to prefer Chinese workers over US workers. Add to that Democrat business stupid policies.

          • Perhaps not, LABobE, except for the not very convenient fact that a taxation above the level people are willing to pay amounts to armed robbery. The fact that the perp is the government changes nothing.

          • A) Your claim is false, even Bush era taxes were lower
            B) US tax rate is one of the highest in the World, for example, income tax in Russia is 12% flat
            C) Even if your claim was true (it’s not), it makes no difference anyway, taxing people more than they are willing to pay is still a criminal act.

            Continue to hate.

          • I said tax rates were NEAR historic lows & they are. There is no tax system on the planet where people are taxed on what they are “willing to pay”

          • LABobE, you’ve got a hunch for lies, dontcha? “tax rates were NEAR historic lows & they are” – really? Since when over 50% is anywhere near “historic lows”? Historic low is big fat 0% as it was in USA until 1914 with a briefly repealed attempt at taxation circa late 1800’s.

            Perhaps, you are the true commei, LABobE. You are lying, you know that we know you are lying, you know that we know that you know you are lying, yet you’re continuing your lies! Way to go 😛

          • Corporate tax is the highest in the world MrMalibuBarbieBoob which is one reason corporations move offshore.

          • the US may have the highest statutory corporate tax rate (35%), but so what? No one pays that rate because of the all the tax breaks and other loopholes. Exon made 10 Billion in profits & paid an effective rate of 13%

          • Typical obfuscation by a leftie. You clowns always talk about the dollars in profits Exxon makes. What is their profit percentage. Oil companies make on average a 7% profit selling gasoline. They also support hundreds of thousands of good high paying jobs with good benefits like you libs say you want and they provide valuable products that we all want and need. Tell me Boob, what percentage does the government make on the sale of gasoline compared to what Exxon makes. Keep your anti corporate BS to yourself.

          • Poor Exon. They only made $10 billion in PROFITS last year & had to pay a whopping 13% tax rate. We should all shed a tear.

          • Not asking you to but you don’t have to stae the facts in a totally dishonest manner either. A 7% profit margin is not gouging anybody and the politicians you adore so much are never going to change the tax code. Too much campaign cash in it for them. Same reason they refuse to reign in the unions.

        • Still not very smart or educated are you Bob. If you knew thinks like economics you understand there is a 80/20 rule. Always been true since the beginning of record history. What’s even more crazy is you can take this to any company and it will be true too (even no-profit group you find at 20/80 rule – where 20% do 80% work and business). The top 20% of the people make the top 80 business and/or wealth. You normally find the top 20% oversee and handle most of the work and then a wage to match these numbers. Will always be a crazy “imbalance”. We have to have it, otherwise there is no reason to try to be better then the next guy. Yes, there is a point of being tax to much. The real problem is the 1% you talk about our normal your liberal democratic politicians that want to control your money, and never pay in themselves – so they give themselves tax breaks. What needs to happen is a form of flat tax. One percentage that no one at all receives a tax break. Then we all would pay a lower tax percentage…. Our politicians will not like it, because most of them would go from paying 2% to paying say 18% (which should be a rough idea where the flat rate should be)… That was the true point behind the politicians picking on Mitt Romney, it was not because he paid so little as most though, it was because they liberal democrats thought he was a fool for not taking advantage of the loop holes and paying only 2% like they do… So what does this sum up… The very top is paying next to nothing, which then means the levels below has to pay more… thus less wealth build up…. and slowly over time a bigger gape between the top and bottom. So to answer your question, “Yes, some parts of the top richest are being taxed into oblivion”

          • The Pareto principle (80/20 rule) doesn’t account for the top 1% having almost 50% of the wealth.

          • And the Walton’s would like to thank you greedy Democrats for throwing cash at them to make them the richest family.

          • And why – pray tell – would that mean they should have to pay more? What about you? You might have more money than many other people. How about we tax YOU at the same rate so we can redistribute more of YOUR wealth?

          • Since most of my income comes from qualified dividends & long term capital gains my tax rate is about 1/2 as much as it would be if it were “ordinary income”.

    • You may lack the intellect for such things as “thinking”. For one thing Obama carried the richest states AND the wealthiest counties & for two, do you really “think” if a socialist took office the result would be the stock market would double, corporate profits would soar to all time highs, the real estate market would go up 35% & wages for working people would remain at near all time lows???

      • MrMalibuBarbieBoobE making his same old same old red state blue state lies come to life again. Every one of your statements has been countered numerous times yet you continue to throw the shit against the wall hoping some of it will stick. The fact that you change your name and avatar on a monthly basis should be the tipoff to everyone here that you are full of that which you throw against the wall.

        • Countered??? the red states are the poorest states with the worst education system in the country. That’s a FACT. The reason my name changes is because this site doesn’t like apposing views

          • And I have pointed out repeatedly that your conclusions regarding income, education, and voting are total fabrication on your part and totally unscientific from a fool like you who is constantly spouting off about science. Your conclusions would not pass muster for a junior high school research paper. You ignore hundreds of other variables. It sucks to be you MrMalibuBarbieBoobE.

          • Don’t mind opposing views if there is any true facts behind them. It’s the faults truths that the you make up as you go to advance your communist agenda, In the end you leftist will be cry to get your welfare checks from a broke government of your own choosing!!

          • Maybe the red states are the poorest because the citizens of those states get to keep most of their salaries.

      • Not sure about what your saying as I got lost somewhere in the middle. But there IS an explanation for the rising stock market, etc., etc. It called M-2 money supply. The fed is essentially creating a bubble by printing too much money and by ‘purchasing’ bonds with a lot of the fake money they are printing. It’s great for a short-term and near-sighted goal, but is already wreaking havoc with the solvency of this nation.
        In effect – we are broke. All this, BTW, under Obama.

        • It’s sad how many low information voters actually believe the Fed prints money (it doesn’t). the Fed buys bonds from banks by crediting those banks’ accounts at the Fed with reserves that didn’t exist before. That’s NOT “printing money” because it doesn’t actually increase the amount of money in circulation. When the government buys bonds from banks, it merely raises the price of that particular type of bond and lowers the interest rate. That’s why fears that “quantitative easing” will eventually lead to runaway inflation are absurd. quantitative easing is merely the managing of long-term interest rates the same way the Fed always has managed short-term interest rates. For you Low Information voters that believe that “Quantitative Easing” is responsible for recent stock market highs Fed bond buying will cause bond prices to be higher and interest rates to be lower, no amount of federal bond buying is going to cause a particular stock to be a good buy if an investor doesn’t think that stock will provide a return. QE may boost profits by reducing the interest rates firms have to pay on their debt, but it’s not going to create profitable enterprises out of thin air. Anyone with any knowledge of economics realizes the reason for record stock prices is that corporate profits and profit margins have soared to at all time highs under Obama.

          • And with that explanation anyone with an Economics background and education completely understand you are very clueless on the subject. Again stop talking on subjects like you are an expert, when have no clue or background. If you wish to ask a question, then do so and learn. Like a good question for you would be: “Then why have corporate profits been so high?” To which the answer has been given to you about a hundred times, because corporate have laid of ten of thousand of people, sold asset, and shrunk all possible expensive. They currently have lower sales, but even lower expenses – so there is a temper higher value to stock. Once, they can no longer cut expense and if their sales do not pick up (which they will not since people (the average person) lost their good paying jobs – and do not have as much money to spend), the corporation will start going out of business. Then even more people will be on government aid…. the ultimate goal of liberals, everyone will be equally poor accept the politicians.

          • HA! IF you have convictions in your believes put your money where your mouth is and sell the market short! Otherwise don’t sit there & pretend you know what you’re talking about

          • Do you even listen to yourself?
            Where do you think those ‘reserves’ come from? From money created by the fed. If you have control over bonds they have to be purchased to be taken off the market, or they were generated for the fed in the first place – hence printing money (you have to give something to get something, unless you’re on welfare). The bonds are PURCHASED because they are in the fed system/under control until maturity.
            Stocks are becoming less and less of a ‘good buy’ because of the amount of money chasing after them, pushing up prices and dropping P:E and other measureables. Does the term ‘bubble’ mean nothing to you?
            The reason for ‘record stock prices…blah, blah, blah…’ is because of the hundreds of billions shoved into the system via QE, bailouts, and all the other interventionalist programs under this admin.
            You sound impressive with your disinformation.

          • The Fed is issuing new reserves and exchanging them for bonds. Those bonds are effectively retired from the stock of assets circulating in the financial system. Reserves are not “money” in any useful sense. they’re only money within the Federal Reserve system

          • Issuing new reserves of what? …MONEY.
            Bonds are purchased by what? …MONEY.
            The FR is responsible for, among other things, managing the supply of what? …MONEY.
            To say the M2 supply is not growing by leaps and bounds is to profess your own ignorance.

    • Obama carried the richest states AND the most wealthy counties in the country so obviously “Socialists and communists” weren’t the only people that voted for him

  1. I have voted Republican and Democrat over the years, because I stay independent, but so help he god after Obama and his fascists government, never again will I ever voted socialists democrat again.

    • If you are serious about understanding Obama, read a few books on FDR and his administration. Not the tribute books that every politicians has written about them, but the serious, highly footnoted ones written by historians. (You might want to start with Burton Folsom’s “New Deal or Raw Deal”)

      I think you will be surprised by two things:
      ….1. FDR was not the great president that we were told that he was, when we were in high school.
      ….2. Obama’s and FDR’s philosophy, policies and tactics are almost identical.

  2. Of course. The losers who voted democratic showed why they had income inequality before, and why it will only get worse until the democrats are voted out.

    • Do facts mean ANYTHING to you??? Obama carried the 10 richest states & lost the 10 poorest states + Obama carried the wealthiest counties! Take a look at a map of red states they are ALL the poorest most uneducated states in the country

      • Verbatim repeat of your past BS posts countered repeatedly MrMalibuBarbieBoobE. About time for another name and avatar change.

  3. This whole story is like a sick joke. I wish it were a satire that intended to contradict itself at every other sentence.

    “States with high income inequality voted Obama” and “Most of the states with small income inequality gaps are Democrat.” If these are both true, who is voting Republican?

    “States with the highest income inequality also have higher median incomes …. So Democrat policies do manage to make things more equal—but not by making the poor richer. They succeed only by making the rich poorer, and no one really benefits from this…” is a breathtaking example of illogic and unjustified conclusions that no one should be dumb enough to believe. Except, the writer hopes, the sort of people who read this tripe.

    It makes sense: the less fortunate vote democratic. Why shouldn’t they? Democrats at least try to help them (not too successfully lately, I admit) while Republicans abuse them to get richer, all the while claiming to make them “free.”
    Free to die young without access to healthcare, free to be abused by employers, banks, etc, who are above the law, and free to starve if they manage to get old.

    • Don’t EVER underestimate the stupidity of the tea party OR what they will believe no matter how absurd it may be. Who’s voting for the GOP? That’s easy. Take a look at the red states the poorest most uneducated rural & southern states in the country

      • Awww…….did the Tea Party threaten your freebies…..OR did Reid and his sidekick Obama tell gullible you they were going to?

        • Is it really that difficult for you people to believe that Dubya’s foreign & domestic policy has been completely discredited with a complete economic meltdown on his watch + lying us into a war that he underestimated the cost by $4 TRILLION & put on a credit card is the reason people voted for Obama?

          • “Lying us into a war?” How old are you? When the facts (at least as they were known at the time) were originally presented EVERYONE wanted to go to war. It is tragic that there seemed to have been another agenda at work which perverted the meaning and goals of those initial actions.

          • Dubya withheld & twisted the facts. He was hell-bent on going to war with Iraq prior to 9/11 & used that tragedy for a preconceived agenda

          • Saddam was in their crosshairs even before 9/11, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz (and others) were determined from the moment they came into office to invade Iraq & secret intelligence was twisted, massaged, and wildly exaggerated to achieve the goal

      • Don’t EVER underestimate the fact that MrMalibuBarbieBoobE will spew the same posts over and over and over and over month after month changing his name and avatar on a regular basis.

    • You mean like the way Black unemployment has doubled under Obama…AND his planned amnesty scam will keep it that way?

          • I wasn’t referring to the unemployment rate – which is artificially lower due to the fact that millions of people have STOPPED LOOKING for work. I referenced the unemployed, not the people who are reportedly looking for work – sorry for the miscommunication.

          • Who puts out this data on how many people are unemployed? Fox news? It’s not the Bureau of Labor Statistics

          • Key word “labor” there, Bobby-boo. You have to be employed or actively seeking employment to be counted, correct? Or has that process changed in the last few days?

          • Whatever party is out of power ALWAYS claim the unemployment figures are wrong because of the reasons you mentioned however we only have one source for the unemployment rate (no matter who’s in power & that’s the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Those are the ONLY numbers that matter.

        • Again LABSartist is wrong. The largest monthly job losses or 750,000 and 800,000 occurred in Nov. and Dec, 2008, immediately after the election. Got any more Obama grade lies for our entertainment?

          • What part of immediately AFTER the election, as in Nov. & Dec. was too complicated for you? What part of Obama doubling Black unemployment was too complicated for you?

          • We
            owe enormous thanks to Obama for rescuing us from the
            catastrophic failures of Dubya & the GOP that collapsed
            Our Banks, Mortgage Industry, Housing Market, Stock Market, Credit Market,
            Construction Market and Auto Industry

    • It is most unfortunate that in some points made here you are correct. Many in the Republican party ARE money grubbing trolls who also like BB (Big Brother), because it lines their pockets as much as it does the Democrats. THAT is why I am a Tea Party member. There’s nothing wrong with helping poor people with getting a fair shake, just like there’s nothing wrong for a rich person to keep what they have earned. Neither Democrats nor many Republicans really look out for the their constituents much any more.

  4. There is an old saying: “Figures lie and liars figure.” I think it would be more meaningful to study the correlation between those who voted for Obama and their education, I.Q. and income level.

    • Of the 10 most educated states, measured by the percentage of residents over 25 years old who have a bachelor’s degree or higher, Obama swept all 10. Conversely, among the 10 least educated states, Obama lost 9 states He also carried 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. Take a look at the red states. They are the least educated & poorest states that are all in the south or rural

        • What he is really saying, and no doubt will repute, is that all the lies about the filthy rich Republicans hoarding the money from the poor minorities is a bold faced lie of the left. That these States have all the Ivy League Colleges for their RICH communist children to go to. So the fact of his statement is that the communist libertard leftists are RICH , RACIST, CAPITALISTS!! Funny how they always accuse the other guy of their own evils!!

      • I knew you would pull out the educated staes post too MRMalibuBarbieBoobE. This BS has been countered again and again yet you throw it out there over and over.

        • Countered by who? . The Least educated states (The percentage of residents over 25 with a college degree) are West Virginia,Mississippi, Arkansas, Kentucky Louisiana, Alabama, Nevada Indiana, Tennessee & Oklahoma are RED (except Nevada) The most educated states are Massachusetts, Maryland, Colorado, Connecticut, Vermont, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New York, Minnesota are all Blue.

          The states with the lowest median household income are Mississippi, Arkansas, West Virginia, Kentucky, Alabama, Tennessee, Louisiana, South Carolina and Oklahoma (which are ALL RED) the 10 states with the highest per-person income : Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Virginia and Washington are BLUE

  5. It would be interesting to know if the income inequality is because their only income is from Obama’s handouts. That is probably where a high percentage of his votes came from, the professional community organizers who venture office to office to apply for free phones and food in between their sessions to have more kids. Color me “not politically correct”.

  6. Why does anyone still reply to this idiot? You all know who I mean. He has been TROLLING for ovomit since he found out they would pay him for it tax free. That is on top of his monthly welfare check. Never has to leave his mothers basement and get her to pay for his ovomitcareless insurance till he’s 26. Which doesn’t really matter because it’s so bad it will never actually work!!

  7. Jon Stewart Trashes Fox News and The Five’s Eric Bolling for Food Stamp Hypocrisy
    Jon Stewart Trashes Fox and Eric Bolling for Food Stamp Hypocrisy | Mediaite
    week, The Daily Show host Jon Stewart took Fox News Channel to task for
    apparent fixation with food stamp recipients being able to
    purchase sea food with their benefits. The Five co-host Eric Bolling
    Like · · Share · 571937 · 52 minutes ago ·
    More Stories

Leave a Reply