Archive for March, 2012

Shocker: Paul Ryan’s budget means more big tax cuts for the rich. –

The tax cuts in Paul Ryan’s 2013 budget plan would result in huge benefits for high-income people and very modest—or no— benefits for low income working households. No surprise here.

By Guest blogger / March 24, 2012

House Budget Committee Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., center, and others, leave a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, where he discussed his budget blueprint.

Jacquelyn Martin/AP


StumbleUpon E-mail

No surprise here, but the tax cuts in Paul Ryan’s 2013 budget plan would result in huge benefits for high-income people and very modest—or no— benefits for low income working households, according to a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center.

Howard Gleckman is a resident fellow at The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, the author of Caring for Our Parents, and former senior correspondent in the Washington bureau of Business Week. (

Recent posts

TPC looked only at the tax reductions in Ryan’s plan, which also included offsetting–but unidentified–cuts in tax credits, exclusions, and deductions. TPC found that in 2015, relative to today’s tax system, those making $1 million or more would enjoy an average tax cut of $265,000 and see their after-tax income increase by 12.5 percent. By contrast, half of those making between $20,000 and $30,000 would get no tax cut at all. On average, people in that income group would get a tax reduction of $129. Ryan would raise their after-tax income by 0.5 percent.

Nearly all middle-income households (those making between $50,000 and $75,000) would see their taxes fall, by an average of roughly $1,000. Ryan would increase their after-tax income by about 2 percent.

Ryan would extend all of the 2001/2003 tax cuts, and then consolidate individual rates to just two—10 and 25 percent. In addition, he’d repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax, reduce the corporate rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, and kill the tax provisions of the 2010 health reform law.

Earlier this week, TPC projected the tax cuts in Ryan’s budget would add $4.6 trillion to the federal deficit over the next decade, even after extending the 2001/2003 tax cuts, which would add another $5.4 trillion to the deficit.

Ryan argues that eliminating or scaling back deductions, credits, and exclusions ought to be part of the GOP fiscal plan. But he won’t say how.

Cuts in those tax preferences could make a big difference in determining who wins and who loses from the tax portion of his budget. But until House Republicans describe which they’d cut, there is no way to estimate what those base-broadeners would mean.

In truth, unless Republicans raise taxes on capital gains and dividends, it is hard to imagine the highest income households getting anything other than a windfall from this budget. Other tax preferences, such as the mortgage interest deduction, are just not that valuable to them.

And since no high-profile Republicans want to raise taxes on gains and dividends (and many would cut investment taxes even further) this budget would likely result in a huge tax cut for those who need it least.  That’s not a great way to start an exercise whose stated goal is to eliminate the budget deficit.

The Christian Science Monitor has assembled a diverse group of the best economy-related bloggers out there. Our guest bloggers are not employed or directed by the Monitor and the views expressed are the bloggers’ own, as is responsibility for the content of their blogs. To contact us about a blogger, click here. To add or view a comment on a guest blog, please go to the blogger’s own site by clicking on



Shocker: Paul Ryan’s budget means more big tax cuts for the rich. –


Critical Race Theory : Cases, Materials, and Problems (2ND 07 Edition) by Dorothy Brown – Powell’s Books

by Dorothy Brown


Critical Race Theory : Cases, Materials, and Problems (2ND 07 Edition) Cover

ISBN13: 9780314166333
ISBN10: 0314166335
Condition: Student Owned
All Product Details

Only 2 left in stock at $58.00!


 0  0  0 0 ShareNew



Synopses & Reviews

Please note that used books may not include additional media (study guides, CDs, DVDs, solutions manuals, etc.) as described in the publisher comments. 



Product Details

Brown, Dorothy
Thomson West
Brown, Dorothy A.
Race relations
Race discrimination
United States Race relations.
Race discrimination — Law and legislation.
Law : General
Edition Number:
Edition Description:
American Casebook
Publication Date:
9.98×7.37x.65 in. 1.56 lbs.



Related Subjects


History and Social Science » Law » General




Critical Race Theory : Cases, Materials, and Problems (2ND 07 Edition) by Dorothy Brown – Powell’s Books.

Rethinking Columbus: The Next 500 Years: Resources for Teaching about the Impact of the Arrival of Columbus in the Americas by Bill Bigelow – Powell’s Books

of the Arrival of Columbus in the Americas

by Bill Bigelow

Rethinking Columbus: The Next 500 Years: Resources for Teaching about the Impact of the Arrival of Columbus in the Americas Cover

ISBN13: 9780942961201
ISBN10: 094296120x
Condition: Standard
All Product Details

Only 1 left in stock at $10.50!

 0  0  0 0 ShareNew

Synopses & Reviews

Publisher Comments:

Rethinking Columbus has changed the way schools teach about the “discovery” of America. This new edition has over 80 essays, poems, short stories, interviews, historical vignettes, and lesson plans that re-evaluate the legacy of Columbus — right up to the present day. Packed with useful teaching ideas for kindergarten through college.A rich chorus of multicultural voices comes together in Rethinking Columbus to replace the murky legends of Columbus with a deeper understanding of history from 1492 to the present.

Product Details

Bigelow, Bill
Peterson, Bob
Rethinking Schools
Milwaukee, Wisc. :
Indians of north america
Multicultural Education
Teaching Methods & Materials – Social Science
Stereotype (psychology)
Indians, treatment of
Education-Teaching Social Studies
Edition Number:
2nd ed.
Edition Description:
Rev and Expande
Publication Date:
10.81×8.33x.43 in. .96 lbs.

Other books you might like

  1. $4.95 New Trade Paper add to wish list
  2. $11.95 Used Trade Paper add to wish list
  3. $40.25 New Trade Paper add to wish list
  4. $1.50 Used Pamphlet add to wish list
  5. $27.70 Google eBooks add to wish list
  6. $8.50 Used Trade Paper add to wish list

Related Subjects

Education » General
Education » Multicultural
Education » Teaching » Social Studies

Rethinking Columbus: The Next 500 Years: Resources for Teaching about the Impact of the Arrival of Columbus in the Americas by Bill Bigelow – Powell’s Books.

Pedagogy of the Oppressed

Synopses & Reviews

Publisher Comments:

First published in Portuguese in 1968, Pedagogy of the Oppressed was translated and published in English in 1970. The methodology of the late Paulo Freire has helped to empower countless impoverished and illiterate people throughout the world. Freire’s work has taken on especial urgency in the United States and Western Europe, where the creation of a permanent underclass among the underprivileged and minorities in cities and urban centers is increasingly accepted as the norm. With a substantive new introduction on Freire’s life and the remarkable impact of this book by writer and Freire confidant and authority Donaldo Macedo, this anniversary edition of Pedagogy of the Oppressed will inspire a new generation of educators, students, and general readers for years to come. For more information, visit

Book News Annotation:

Reprint of the 1970 classic with a new introduction and bibliography (of 16 p.) by Donaldo Macedo and foreword (6 p.) by Richard Shaull.
Annotation c. Book News, Inc., Portland, OR (


With an new introduction to Freire’s life and the impact of this book by writer and Freire confidant and authority Donaldo Macedo, this anniversary edition will inspire a new generation of educators, students, and general readers.


Includes bibliographical references.

What Our Readers Are Saying

Add a comment for a chance to win!
Average customer rating based on 1 comment:

brodie, March 14, 2008 (view all comments by brodie)
This book should be required reading for any teacher, particularly any language teacher from the United States. It is already a classic, and hopefully will become foundational. Freire was a brilliant man.

Was this comment helpful? | Yes | No
(10 of 17 readers found this comment helpful)

Product Details

Macedo, Donaldo P.
Macedo, Donaldo P.
Freire, Paulo
New York :
Aims & Objectives
Sociology – Social Theory
Critical pedagogy
Popular education.
Education — Philosophy.
Sociology – General
Edition Number:
Edition Description:
30th anniversary ed.
Series Volume:
Publication Date:
9.03×6.00x.54 in. .65 lbs.

Other books you might like

  1. $9.99 Google eBooks add to wish list
  2. $15.93 Google eBooks add to wish list
  3. $2.50 Used Trade Paper add to wish list
  4. $29.95 New Trade Paper add to wish list
  5. $15.95 Used Hardcover add to wish list
  6. $26.50 New Trade Paper add to wish list

Related Subjects

Education » Assessment
Education » General
History and Social Science » Sociology » General spacer spacer



Pedagogy of the Oppressed.

Occupied America: A History of Chicanos by – Powell’s Books

Rodolfo Acuña

Authored by Rodolfo Acuña, one of the most influential and highly-regarded scholars of Chicano history and Ethnic Studies, Occupied America is the leading textbook for Chicano history courses. Beginning with the Mesoamerican civilizations before the 1519 Spanish invitation, continuing through Mexico’s conquests as a developing nation, and ending with an examination of issues of immigration, labor, education, and equality during the last 100 years, this text serves as an ideal foundation for understanding and analyzing Chicano history. This extensively researched and passionately written text not only covers the major developments and incidents in Mexican history, but also explores the complicating factors of race, gender and class in forming Chicano identity.

New to the sixth edition

  • The entire text has been streamlined, to make it more concise, contextualized, and student-orientated, while still preserving its passionate voice.
  • Timelines at the beginning of chapters 8 through 15 help plot cause and effect and lend context to important events and eras in Chicano history.
  • “The Map Room” section at the end of the text gives students Web addresses for important maps that trace the migrations of peoples throughout the Americas.
  • Up-to-date references and new sources throughout the text encourage students and professors to engage in further scholarship.

Visit us at

Book News Annotation:

An updated edition of Acu<~n>a’s college level Chicano history text, providing extensive discussion of the role of race in forming the Chicano identity. Includes new information on early Mexican-American history, and gender issues, with greater attention paid to pre-1812 Mexico and the occupation of Middle America.
Annotation �2004 Book News, Inc., Portland, OR (


Occupied America, designed to accommodate the growing number of Mexican-American or Chicano History courses, is the most comprehensive text in this market. The Sixth Edition of Occupied America has been revised to make the text more user-friendly and student-oriented, while maintaining its passionate voice.

Table of Contents


Chapter 1: Not Just Pyramids, Explorers, and Heroes

Chapter 2: The Occupation of Middle America

Chapter 3: A legacy of Hate: The Conquest of Mexico’s Northwest

Chapter 4: Remember the Alamo: The Colonization of Texas

Chapter 5: Freedom in a Cage: The Colonization of New Mexico

Chapter 6: Sonora Invaded: The Occupation of Arizona

Chapter 7: California Lost: America for Euroamericans

Chapter 8: Immigration, Labor, and Generational Change

Chapter 9: The 1920s: Transition Years and Tensions

Chapter 10: Mexican American Communities in the Making: The Depression Years

Chapter 11: World War II: The Betrayal of Promises

Chapter 12: “Happy Days”: Chicano Communities Under Siege

Chapter 13: Good-bye, America: The Chicano in the 1960s

Chapter 14: The 1970s and 1980s: Beginning the Deconstruction of the Sixties

Chapter 15: Becoming a National Minority: 1980—2001


Book Notes


Product Details

A History of Chicanos
Prentice Hall
Acuna, Rodolfo
Acuuna, Rodolfo
New York
United States – General
Mexican americans
General History
Edition Number:
Edition Description:
Trade paper
Series Volume:
cahier no 36
Publication Date:
Grade Level:
College/higher education:
9.90×7.50x.80 in. 1.77 lbs.

Related Subjects



Follow us on…



Occupied America: A History of Chicanos by – Powell’s Books.

The Real Goal of Ariz.’s Book Banning Thought Police: Harass Latinos – COLORLINES


On Jan. 1, Arizona’s ban on the Mexican American Studies curriculum used in Tucson high schools went into effect. The weeks since have been marked by confusion and backtracking as the district leaders and teachers scramble to comply with the state law. The fight is far from over, though, with a federal lawsuit pending and ongoing organizing taking place.

Initially, the Tucson Unified School District Board of Education seemed poised to refuse compliance. But it quickly caved when State Superintendent John Huppenthal, who thought up this whole thing, slapped the district with a $4.9 million penalty by cutting its state funding retroactively to last August.

How do you get rid of a program that has, by all educational standards, been successful for more than a decade? Apparently, the first step is to strip that curriculum of the material that gives it heft. This week, the district began removing seven books from MAS classrooms, which were boxed up and stored in a warehouse where books go to die. That list includes “Occupied America: A History of Chicanos,” Paulo Freire’s “Pedagogy of the Oppressed,” “Rethinking Columbus,” “Critical Race Theory,” Shakespeare’s “The Tempest” and “Chicano!: the History of the Mexican American Civil Rights Movement.”

The removal is to be thorough—teachers are not allowed to keep even personal copies of these books in their classrooms. Students and teachers described their fear and heartbreak at an emotional community meeting over the past weekend.

It isn’t just the books but also the context in which they are being taught that is problematic for the district. As the list has made its way around the country, the district immediately objected to accusations of banning books. In a statement, the district said that it had not banned the books, but simply removed them from classes that had been banned. The books could still be found in other classrooms across the district, and in its libraries.

Jeff Biggers, who has done excellent, consistent journalism on this issue, reported the following availability: two copies of “Pedagogy of the Oppressed,” one copy of “Critical Race Theory” in the online catalog and of 16 in-district copies of “Rethinking Columbus,” none are in Tucson High School, the home of the Mexican American Studies curriculum. So these books can still be read and taught, says the district, just not in the context of Mexican American Studies and racial politics.

That is the problem, for instance, with “The Tempest,” Shakespeare’s play about colonialism and slavery. Teacher Curtis Acosta, who designed much of the banned curriculum and led its implementation, recorded a meeting with district administrators last Wednesday. Everyone is clearly confused, and trying to protect the district. So administrators tell Acosta in the meeting that it would be best not to teach “The Tempest” using the “nexus of race, class and oppression” or “issues of critical race theory.”

In an interview with Biggers, Acosta notes that he was told to avoid texts and lessons with race or oppression as central themes. He further notes that there may be penalties if students independently address these themes: “We also have not received confirmation that the ideas, dialogue, and class work of our students will be protected…. if I avoid discussing such themes in class, yet the students see the themes and decide to write, discuss or ask questions in class, we may also be found to be in violation.”

Three things strike me about this situation.

First, I’m impressed with the rigor of this curriculum. I have read most of these books, and the “Critical Race Theory” anthology is challenging even for me, with 25 years of such theory and a lot of practice under my belt. No wonder this program raised grades and graduation rates so successfully.

Second, I think of books as living entities that come alive when a reader engages them. It hurts me to think of lonely books stuck in storage.

Finally, and most importantly, I understand that in this process, the state and the district will come up with all kinds of maneuvers to replace this curriculum against the will of the teachers, administrators, students and parents who have benefitted in myriad ways from its existence. The powers that be will constantly make and unmake regulations because there is no easy way to do this. All that inconsistency will make no difference to the Hornes and Huppenthals and Brewers who put it in place, because their objective has already been met—to put the Mexican American community on the defensive by reinforcing its un-American image, and to prevent any progressive discussion of racial politics in the state. They aren’t opposed to racial politics, just to a brand that counters their own.

When I was in Tucson last fall with the CultureStrike delegation, I toured historic South Tucson with Salomon Baldenegro, a local civil rights hero who is featured in “Chicano!”. Baldenegro, now in his 60s, told us he was an early reader and fluent English speaker, but when he started school, all kids of Mexican descent, no matter how deep their roots in Arizona, were put into Americanization programs where they “learned” English and American games. When Baldenegro’s mom registered him for school, the principal tested his reading. The little boy read out loud a book for first graders, then one for second graders and then one for third graders. The principal accused him of having memorized all the books and refused to put him in the proper class for his level. Some 60 years later, the state of Arizona, having had to desegregate its schools, has come up with a new way to Americanize Mexican Americans.

The state will fail, just as they did with Baldenegro’s generation. Tucson activists, while understandably angry and disappointed, project an optimism that we often don’t expect from people who have been so put upon for so long, and they are far from giving up. But they can’t protect their right to knowledge alone. The rest of us need to back them up, by following their fight, by talking to our own friends and neighbors about it, and by taking action when we are asked.

Comments for this page are closed.

Showing 9 comments

  • urbanskin

    It should be mentioned that numerous Native authors were “banned” as well.  Sherman Alexie, Suzan Harjo, Winona LaDuke, Leslie Marmon Silko, Buffy Sainte Marie.  Focusing on only one aspect of what was banned alienates potential allies.  There is need to unify our joint struggles.

  • kristina29

    Wow. I didn’t think Arizona couldn’t possibly get anymore ridiculous. I stand corrected.

  • 36stmexican

    The Mexican American Studies teachers have comitted the crime of memory.Remembering our history is frightening to some people. The Mas teachers have comitted the crime of demonstrating that our youth can learn.Remember history,when it was a crime to teach a slave to read?Our youth can learn and will pay attention to teachers without suspension,expulsion,detention,or punishment for speaking Spanish.When is it a crime to teach in a way that captures the attention of our young people?Educators of color are punished for suceeding where others fail.Generating power with and for our community is the offense.Demonstrating that power with can fly while power over can’t even leave the runway has to be unlawful in the state of Arizona.

  • mkspence

    Is there any reason why TUSD can’t bring their Mexican American Studies curriculum in compliance with state law in the same manner as Phoenix, Yuma, Nogales, and Flagstaff?

  • floreswriter

    Why would TUSD post the ban on their website? Because they won’t define this act as a ban on those books.

  • Allboutenergy

    The more things change, the
    more things stay the same.  I had the
    pleasure of owning a small restaurant in the copper mining town of Bisbee, AZ
    (4 miles from the Mexican border) in the early ’70s.  Every morning the superintendent of the local
    school district would come in for his morning coffee and doughnut.  He’d sit at the counter and I enjoyed
    chatting with him about local gossip and education.  I mentioned on one of these morning visits
    that I had substitute taught in an 8th grade English class the past week and
    found some of the students from Spanish speaking homes, which accounted for
    nearly half the Bisbee population, could not speak English well enough to even
    understand their homework assignments.  I
    suggested what has since come to be referred to as an “English as a Second
    Language” curriculum, to give them a leg up, as it were.  He responded by asking, “Why should we
    do that; we were here first.  Let them
    learn English on their own.”  This
    from the superintendent of the public schools!
    I suggested he study up on the local history and to look up the Gadsden
    Purchase in particular.  He never again
    set foot in my restaurant nor was I called to substitute teach in a Bisbee
    school ever again.

  • mkspence

    I’m sorry, but I have looked at the Tuscon Unified School District web page about this issue, and nowhere do I see a mention of a “book ban”…

  • Of course they wouldn’t mentioned “book ban.” Those are dangerous and correct words. They will use misleading labels so people won’t realize what they are doing until it is too late.

  • C_Tom_J

    “All MAS (Mexican-American Studies) courses and teaching activities, regardless of the budget line from which they are funded, shall be suspended immediately”.

    “The district shall revise its social studies core curriculum to increase its coverage of
    Mexican-American history and culture, including a balanced presentation of diverse viewpoints on controversial issues. The end result shall be a single common social studies core sequence through which all high school students are exposed to diverse viewpoints.”

    Part of this process is the purging of books that bring subversive viewpoints about the history and origins of the US. That means banning books so they can “revise” their curriculum. It’s pretty obvious, it’s not like you have to read between the lines to see what they’re doing. Whether or not you can find the words “book ban” in the text when you hit ctrl+f is not the issue, it is the fact that these republican representatives are controlling the information that our children receive in their education, promoting a white ethnocentric system of learning. Can you spell F-A-S-C-I-S-T  M-O-T-H-E-R-F-U-C-K-E-R-S? I sure can.



The Real Goal of Ariz.’s Book Banning Thought Police: Harass Latinos – COLORLINES.

The upper class is more Republican

A few months ago I listened to Frank Newport of Gallup tell Kai Ryssdal of Marketplace that upper class Americans tend to be Democrats. Ryssdal was skeptical, but Newport reiterated himself, and explained that’s just how the numbers shook out. This is important because Newport shows up every now and then to offer up numbers from Gallup to get a pulse of the American nation.

Frankly, Newport was just full of crap. I understand that Thomas Frank wrote an impressionistic book which is highly influential, What’s the Matter with Kansas, while more recently Charles Murray has come out with the argument in Coming Apart that the elites tend toward social liberalism. I’m of the opinion that Frank is just wrong on the face of it, but that’s OK because he’s an impressionistic journalist, and I don’t expect much from that set beyond what I might expect from a sports columnist for ESPN. Murray presents a somewhat different case, as outlined by Andrew Gelman, in that his “upper class” is modulated in a particular manner so as to fall within the purview of his framework. Neither of these qualifications apply to Frank Newport, who is purportedly presenting straightforward unadorned data.

When the “average person on the street” thinks upper class they think first and foremost money. This is not all they think about, but in the rank order of criteria this is certainly first on the list. We can argue till the cows come home as to whether a wealthy small business owner in Iowa who is a college drop out is more or less elite than a college professor in New York City who is bringing home a modest upper middle class income (very modest adjusting for cost of living). But to a first approximation when we look at aggregates we had better look at the bottom line of money. After that we can talk details. And the first approximation is incredibly easy to ascertain. Below is a table and chart which illustrate the proportion of non-Hispanic whites after 2000 who align with a particular party as a function of family income, with family income being indexed to a 1986 value (so presumably $80,000 hear means what $80,000 would buy in 1986, not the aughts).

Family Income Strong Dem Dem Lean Dem Ind Lean Rep Rep Strong Rep
Less than $20,000 12 15 12 24 9 15 12
$20-$40,000 12 15 10 18 11 19 15
$40-$80,000 11 14 10 13 11 24 18
More than $80,000 12 12 10 11 11 23 21

The results are straightforward: the more income a family has, the more likely they are to be Republican. There is a lot of nuance and geographical detail to be fleshed out in these results. But these facts are where we need to start.

Andrew Gelman has much more as usual. For example, this chart:

Why do I keep posting this stuff? Because facts matter. That’s my hope, my faith. Tell people facts, and they will open their eyes. Tell your friends, tell your family. Have whatever opinion you want to have, but start with the facts we know. Look up facts, calculate facts, analyze facts. They are there for us, we just need to go look. Google is your friend, Wikipedia is your friend. The General Social Survey is your friend.

 9  2 Share 0

March 25th, 2012 Tags: ,
by in Data Analysis | 19 comments | RSS feed | Trackback >

19 Responses to “The upper class is more Republican”

  1. 1.   Cathy Says:

    So, the more money a person has, the more likely they are to vote Republican. But the more education a person has, the less likely they are to vote Republican – with the exception of those who never finished high school yet have a very high income (which, I’d guess, has a lot of IT folks.)

  2. 2.   Razib Khan Says:

    with the exception of those who never finished high school yet have a very high income

    the error bars there are huge. don’t trust that. as i imply above aggregating all these groups into one pot can mislead. but yes, to a first approximation what you say is correct (though dems have traditionally had a bimodal distribution, the last and most educated vote for them, repubs tend to be in the middle).

  3. 3.   Anthony Says:

    Part of the issue is defining “elite”. If you looked at the politics of America’s approximately 300 billionaires, it might look very different than the politics of people who have an income over $1 million, or over an income of $80,000.

    My impression is that Charles Murray is trying to define “elite” as “opinion leaders” or something similar, which means people with non-STEM college degrees in fields like the media or teaching, which generally means poorly paid relative to their education, which would tend to skew very Democrat.

    Incidentally, Thomas Frank’s thesis is at least partially normative, that people with lower incomes *should* vote for Deomcrats, without ever considering the idea that some “poor” people might believe that Republican economic policies would actually benefit them more. Having not read his book, I don’t know if he notices that in states like Kansas, people do generally vote more Democrat as they have less money, just skewed more Republican than in more liberal states.

  4. 4.   rob Says:

    I believe that Frank Newport was correct the upper CLASS are democrats however the 1% financially are predominantely Republican.

  5. 5.   Razib Khan Says:

    I believe that Frank Newport was correct the upper CLASS are democrats however the 1% financially are predominantely Republican.

    what? what the hell are you saying? it’s awesomely informative that you bolded it?

  6. 6.   Karl Zimmerman Says:

    I read a bunch of left-liberal blogs off and on, and Thomas Frank’s thesis is pretty widely derided now. E.G., look at this post which airs an unfortunately little-commented upon 2006 study, which found that:

    1. Whites without college degrees are not turning towards Republicans.
    2. Lower-income whites, if anything, are turning towards the Democrats, as poor white voters with college degrees have become progressively less inclined to support Republicans.
    3. From 1952 to 2004, the working-class white vote in the South shifted to be 20% more Republican. In the rest of the country – only 1% more Republican!

  7. 7.   Josh Says:

    When you get to define what is wealthy, you can make the facts suit your needs. I’m sorry, but 80k is not what republicans mean when they talk about “the wealthy”. Here is an article from left of center source that shows that a large majority of the wealthiest Americans as well as most of those earning above 200k (as of 2008) vote Democrat. The guys arguing that the wealthiest Americans are on the left aren’t wrong, they just picked a different set of data to work with.

  8. 8.   Razib Khan Says:

    Here is an article from left of center source that shows that a large majority of the wealthiest Americans as well as most of those earning above 200k (as of 2008) vote Democrat.

    look, i kind of think it’s moronic to look at the top 20 wealthiest and infer from that. people who are worth billions are kind of beyond standard models. second, i know the 2008 data. it’s suggestive, but

    1) 52% is technically most, but it’s kind of misleading in the context of the comment. don’t be a douche

    2) the sample size in that epoll may be part of the issue (which might explain the huge fluctuation between 2004 and 2008). i would be nice to dig deeper into this, though to my knowledge no one has.

    as you say if you look hard enough you can find countervailing data. the point is not to look hard, but see where the preponderance of the data points. that’s called good faith, and trying to see how reality shakes out, rather than verifying your hypothesis. don’t be so patronizing. you comment was weak.

  9. 9.   Dave Says:

    “so presumably $80,000 hear means what $80,000 would buy in 1986″

    Where’s Waldo…

  10. 10.   DK Says:

    $80K elite? Is this some sort of a joke? Elites are the ones that buy everyone else and you can’t do that for 80K. Try maybe 80,000K.

  11. 11.   Karl Zimmerman Says:

    I think 2008 was a fluke year which shouldn’t really be used as a guide for how the very wealthy vote. The financial crisis, John McCain’s useless stunt during the depths of it, and probably the selection of Sarah Palin pushed a great many generally conservative wealthy people to support Obama, because he seemed the most likely to return the country to stability.

    In general, people should check out this blog. It has a lot of data on occupations by profession. Most of the data is culled from FEC donations, however, which means it’s not the best determination of the truly wealthy, as the upper-middle class donates a fair amount to political campaigns as well.

  12. 12.   Bobby LaVesh Says:

    These graphs probably suggest one common-sense observation:

    – People whether we’re rich or poor, educated or not tend to support their own cause.

    It is no secret that most people believe that left-wing policies tend to benefit the poor and right-wing policies tend to benefit the rich. People tend to vote what they think will help them.

    There really isn’t too much of a surprise there.

    As far as education- whereas increasing education tends to trend less republican- once you get to post-grad, that is where republican’s really lose out. I’m sure a factor in that is- a large number of post-grads are dependant on government funding for their research (or their oft-state funded university). Ones that arn’t are more likely to have peers dependant on it.

    I’m actually very curious on how religion with income maps out. From personal-experience it seems to me that the richest and poorest of society tend to be the most religious- with the middle groups less so. I’m curious if my personal observations match the nation as a whole.

  13. 13.   Bobby LaVesh Says:

    #10 DK.

    $80K from 1986 would be over $100k in today’s dollars. Sure, that’s not “elite” rich- but that’s definately a lot more than those in the lowest brackets.

    “Elite” may not be the right word- “comfortable” might be a better word. As #3 Anthony commented- it would be interesting to see the “true” elite- how things change then- how they vote.

    I’m sure from a voting perspective the true “elite” (the mega-millionaires/billionaires) are too small a percentage for campaigners to worry about as a group seperate from the “comfortable”.

  14. 14.   Ria Says:

    It seems to me that a realistic analysis of income distribution and voting would have to be done regionally in the US. This is because there is too much variation due to regionality that can confound the results unless you do a more sophisticated analysis than what is being done in these discussions. After all, the exact same position with the exact same experience can command a drastically different salary in New York City versus Tennessee or Montana. As much as $20k. That would easily be a standard deviation.

    I’ve not seen a thorough discussion of the data in terms of median income versus standard deviations as a means of describing the data even in a nation-wide sense (for each census year)…everything in the discussion is focusing on simplistic definitions of salaries that we all have a social recognition as being significant salaries. Let’s just stick to the data, and that will remove the confusion…and allow us to describe the sources of variance most clearly (as in the case of regional variance in salary, for example…since I do not know if all data sets being discussed have been adjusted for cost of living, and even if they have, if such an adjustment truly normalizes across the nation…after all, you can still probably purchase more with an equivalent cost-of-living-adjusted salary in Montana than you can in New York City just because incidentals also cost more in NYC).

  15. 15.   Karl Zimmerman Says:

    14 –

    Such a study has already been done. “Blue” states show little correlation between income and voting patterns, while “red” states show a high correlation. Even though rich people in all states are more likely to support Republicans than poor people, a larger minority in states like Connecticut support Democrats than in states like Mississippi, which explains why higher-income states overall now tilt to the Democrats.

  16. 16.   Curious Says:

    Karl Zimmerman is right (and this was previously discussed at some length here on GNXP.) My personal experience leads me to hazard a guess that the “working rich” ie. those in high effective tax brackets such as those of highly paid professionals, tend to be more Republican than the extremely wealthy who shield their income from taxation of earnings on capital rather than labor via capital gains taxes, municipal bonds, etc…

    BTW, even college professors at Columbia should hardly be considered “upper class” by NYC standards. You will not find many of them living in Larchmont or Rye and will definitely find them thin on the ground (water?) at venues like the American Yacht Club.

  17. 17.   Razib Khan Says:

    BTW, even college professors at Columbia should hardly be considered “upper class” by NYC standards.

    i alluded to that in the post. is there a reason you’re repeating that?

  18. 18.   Curious Says:

    No, I should have read your post more carefully. At any rate after controlling for red state – blue state effects I believe the proclivity towards Republican politics is probably explained more by one’s effective tax rate than by net worth.

  19. 19.   Razib Khan Says:

    blue state effects I believe the proclivity towards Republican politics is probably explained more by effective tax rate than most anything else.

    if you are talking about a model with dependent an independent variables, religious liberalism/conservatism is massively powerful. most poor fundamentalists and rich atheists are not republican, but they are to a far greater extent than people would care. this does not negate that fiscal concerns are extremely important.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)


Kalmbach Publishing Co. Copyright © 2012, Kalmbach Publishing Co.

The upper class is more Republican.