Terrorist Fist Bumps All Around (politics) Thread

by **TenuredVulture** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 14:12:53

VoxOrion wrote:Don't gross estimators and individual perception vary largely from one another, though? There has to be some attitude/perspective to the answer, even if it's a snapshot in time. For example, isn't it likely that guy who was fine paying his mortgage in 2002 might answer in 2008, when he's still fine with paying his mortgage but aware of a mortgage crisis, say he's worse off thanks to this exterior perception that doesn't actually relate to his life situation?

Am I making sense?

Yes, you make sense. The National Election survey I believe breaks it up into two questions, one on individual economic conditions, and the other on "business conditions".

Using some "objective" standard like GDP growth has problems as well, since not all will benefit equally from that. Or looking at inflation and unemployment. Retired people suffer from inflation, but not unemployment. And so on.

Fiorina's work is very sophisticated in its use of statistics, and he controls for party ID. The 2000 election of George Bush led to a reconsideration of some of the work. Perhaps the campaign professionals should go and look at the March 2001 edition of PS, where they can read how all the 2000 predictions went wrong.

by **VoxOrion** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 14:51:58

That's cool - I've only read reference to Fiorina's work, but never read about it itself. I'll admit that my skepticism may be world-view based (as in I believe people take too much of what they hear, sans details or perspective, and turn it into percieved fact), and I'm up for having that blown apart by facts. The more reading and research I do, the more I find that my world view is validated by facts as often as my world view is blown apart by facts. I suppose that leads me to believe I'm not a complete moron, and reminds me that I don't know everything (except when I'm arguing politics with one of you, when I clearly do know everything).

by **TenuredVulture** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 15:00:33

VoxOrion wrote:That's cool - I've only read reference to Fiorina's work, but never read about it itself. I'll admit that my skepticism may be world-view based (as in I believe people take too much of what they hear, sans details or perspective, and turn it into percieved fact), and I'm up for having that blown apart by facts. The more reading and research I do, the more I find that my world view is validated by facts as often as my world view is blown apart by facts. I suppose that leads me to believe I'm not a complete moron, and reminds me that I don't know everything (except when I'm arguing politics with one of you, when I clearly do know everything).

Some months ago maybe I made the point that while current economic conditions aren't great, a little perspective should change your outlook. This isn't the late 1970s, where both inflation and unemployment were higher. This went on for years, not a few quarters.

And again, perspective--the 70s weren't as bad as the 30s.

by **VoxOrion** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 15:04:07

And, realistically, this is an election year, any foible or imperfection is going to be exaggerated and demanded for the sake of candidate loyalty (I think party loyalty as we understand it will be less of an issue this year, just as I don't believe party loyalty had much to do with the 2006 sweep by the Democrats).

by **TenuredVulture** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 15:06:57

There's that, there's an ever more hysterical media, but I also think that high debt levels have made some people more economically vulnerable than in the 70s.

by **dajafi** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 15:13:57

Without spending any more time looking up the relevant numbers (it's astonishing how much I've already managed to do today while avoiding actual work for which I'm paid), I think another difference between economic perceptions in the '70s and now was that back then, we were in the middle of the labor market transformation that brought women, including moms of young children, into the workforce as the norm rather than the exception. Families generally didn't like it, but they could somewhat boost their earning power by sending both parents into the workplace. (Obviously--and vastly oversimplifying here--this is why household income has gone up over recent decades while real wages have lagged.)

So that was still an option for at least some families back then. There's nothing as obvious that households can do now, other than work more hours when possible or take second/third jobs. All of which actions might have other bad effects on child welfare, personal happiness, etc.

Going even further out onto the limb... I wonder if the cumulative experience of thirty years in which government was presented as "the problem, not the solution" and the concomitant erosion of the social safety net has people feeling as or more insecure in terms of economics than they did in the '70s.

by **VoxOrion** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 15:32:09

dajafi wrote:Without spending any more time looking up the relevant numbers (it's astonishing how much I've already managed to do today while avoiding actual work for which I'm paid), I think another difference between economic perceptions in the '70s and now was that back then, we were in the middle of the labor market transformation that brought women, including moms of young children, into the workforce as the norm rather than the exception. Families generally didn't like it, but they could somewhat boost their earning power by sending both parents into the workplace. (Obviously--and vastly oversimplifying here--this is why household income has gone up over recent decades while real wages have lagged.)

So that was still an option for at least some families back then. There's nothing as obvious that households can do now, other than work more hours when possible or take second/third jobs. All of which actions might have other bad effects on child welfare, personal happiness, etc.

Going even further out onto the limb... I wonder if the cumulative experience of thirty years in which government was presented as "the problem, not the solution" and the concomitant erosion of the social safety net has people feeling as or more insecure in terms of economics than they did in the '70s.

The nine scariest words...

One factor that you bring up in a different context is the seemingly increasing desire for both parents not to have to work. Maybe it's anecdotal, but there seems to be a greater desire for a parent to stay home. That may also be a new way to show off one's affluence, and it's not cultural at all, I don't know. I realize that the government solution is to reduce the cost of childcare so both parents can work, and you can guess my opinion on that (hint: it's backwards).

While I agree to some extent with the deepness of the "government is not the solution" attitude today (that Gallup poll I posted to no response last week shows that the attitude is very much alive, and that Americans by and large don't support the redistribution of wealth), isn't that part of American socialization back to it's founding? American skepticism of authority and government isn't new - if anything, I think the "New Deal" era was the abberation, not the other way around (as you seem to suggest).

by **jerseyhoya** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 15:51:55

Jim Webb, the freshman Democratic senator from Virginia, has ruled out serving as Barack Obama's vice-president.

“Last week I communicated to Senator Obama and his presidential campaign my firm intention to remain in the United States Senate,' said Webb in a statement. "Under no circumstances will I be a candidate for Vice President."

Webb, a Marine veteran of Vietnam turned novelist, was the source of much veep speculation, but many Democrats considered the straight-talking populist a dangerous pick.

by **dajafi** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 16:00:50

VoxOrion wrote:While I agree to some extent with the deepness of the "government is not the solution" attitude today (that Gallup poll I posted to no response last week shows that the attitude is very much alive, and that Americans by and large don't support the redistribution of wealth), isn't that part of American socialization back to it's founding? American skepticism of authority and government isn't new - if anything, I think the "New Deal" era was the abberation, not the other way around (as you seem to suggest).

Yes and no. There's no doubt that 1933-69 (or so) was the high point of support for government activism... just as there's no doubt that the crummy economic conditions at the start of that period and good ones at the end of it largely dictated public opinion. But it's not like government never stepped in before or since, on one side or another.

Meanwhile, we probably could have a raging argument over the phrase "redistribution of wealth," but that doesn't seem like a real good use of anybody's time.

My view is that government is neither "the problem" nor "the solution," but just another tool in the box (albeit the most politically contentious one, since it's funded with everybody's taxes). Maybe it's squinting on my part, but part of what I like about Obama is that he shows signs of taking a similar approach.

by **Woody** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 16:08:29

So... FISA

by **TenuredVulture** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 16:20:05

Actual government involvement in the economy operates at a huge disconnect with anti-government rhetoric. And it isn't just US, but a growing body of international institutions that are supposed to smooth the waters of global commerce.

And while much of the Great Society has been gutted, there cornerstones of the New Deal, combined with the military industrial complex are here to stay--eliminating them would come at a huge political cost. The reason for this is that these programs are more comprehensive than things like TANF and Foodstamps. The beneficiaries of Social Security, Federal Student Loans and so forth comprise just about everyone.

I think that the expansion of SCHIPS proposed by the Democrats and vetoed by Bush was an attempt to create a kind of universal Medicare for Children, and that's why Congress came close to over-riding Bush's veto.

As far as wealth redistribution, no, I don't see much support for that at all.

by **dajafi** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 16:58:11

This is why I still get annoyed when people (not people here, for the most part) characterize Fox News as no different from other news operations. Seeing bias everywhere is one thing; career destruction is something else.

by **TenuredVulture** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 17:58:38

I saw that Rush Limbaugh has little respect for Bill O'Reilly and Jack Savage. Good for him.

by **jerseyhoya** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 18:01:52

Yeah, that article was pretty sweet

Late Period Limbaugh

by **Laexile** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 20:13:09

Rush has now fashioned McCain's new campaign slogan:

Conservatives, the candidate you hate less. That’s McCain.

dajafi wrote:McCain's very probably going to lose because, one, the economy is in the crapper (I forget the rule about GDP growth and the fate of the incumbent party... Paul?), and two, the country thinks, correctly, that Bush has done an all-time awful job.

Elections aren't about reality. They are about perceptions. The economy is always going to take a downturn in the business cycle. Government can help the economy and hinder it, but it can't control it. We had a recession at the end of Clinton's term. No one blamed Gore. Is Bush more responsible than a Democratic Congress? They said in 2006, "Elect us and we'll turn things around." They did. The wrong way. Yet America blames Bush and the Republicans. It's not all their fault. Just as it wasn't Bill Clinton's fault in 2000-2001.

dajafi wrote: Not only does McCain have little to do with it; I'm starting to sincerely believe that Obama has relatively little to do with it.

I don't think either has much to do with the recession and neither has helped us out of it. Obama is the perfect candidate at the perfect time. He's coming at a time when America wants a Democrat, any Democrat, who seems at all Presidential. He's running on catchphrases that mean whatever people want them to mean. Hope? Hope for what? Change? Change to what? People believe Obama believes what they believe and will solve their problems.

By not emphasizing issues Obama doesn't run afoul of issues pratfalls. People pick them apart. People don't understand them. No one is going to argue with hope and change. He's a great public speaker who says things simply. He's giving us style over substance and that's what works.

McCain is old school. He's John Kerry 2008 version. His positions are way too complex for the public. He's voted for and against tax cuts. He says things like "100 years" and not only doesn't say he misspoke. He repeats it. He's not great on TV and takes unpopular stances. The American public that thinks that Obama agrees with them knows McCain doesn't.

dajafi wrote:You guys on the right basically know this. TP, it's pretty rich that you cite "the disastrous consequences of the left's good intentions" at the end of the most ideological administration both at home ("Tax cuts yay! We cants go wrongz!") and abroad (Iraq) we've ever seen. In both areas, Bush makes the previous champ--LBJ, of course--look like a piker.

While the policies may have been part of the problem, the bigger part is the Bush administration's incompetency. Had a competent administration implemented these policies we'd be in a lot better shape.

by **TomatoPie** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 20:29:21

dajafi wrote: TP, it's pretty rich that you cite "the disastrous consequences of the left's good intentions" at the end of the most ideological administration both at home ("Tax cuts yay! We cants go wrongz!") and abroad (Iraq) we've ever seen. In both areas, Bush makes the previous champ--LBJ, of course--look like a piker.

You can argue about Iraq. It may be a disaster, it may be -- in the long run -- a move that helps us and most residents of the Middle East. Just too soon to know. For sure, it was a bold move, and you can argue imprudent. You may be right.

You cannot argue about the tax cuts, unless to say that they should have been cut more. Tax revenues are exceeding, by no small margin, all previous records and all estimates, even by tax-cut proponents. There can be no question that tax rates affect behavior.

Sensible persons, a class to which you can claim membership, really cannot go on repeating the baseless mantra that "tax cuts must be paid for." JFK proved it, Reagan proved it, and Bush proved it: rates go down, revenues go up.

Might tax revenues have gone up even more had rates stayed high? You can make that argument, but I don't buy it, especially over the long term.

It's clear that in the US, tax revenues track most closely to GDP, not to tax rates. I think you can easily see and accept that lower tax rates are going to lead to a bigger GDP; hence, more tax revenues.

Now, if you wanna complain about Bush domestic policy, holler about the spending. And I'm right there with ya.

But please stop the carping about tax cuts -- it is baseless class warfare and it sounds like Paul Begala.

by **VoxOrion** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 20:48:44

dajafi wrote:My view is that government is neither "the problem" nor "the solution," but just another tool in the box (albeit the most politically contentious one, since it's funded with everybody's taxes).

Although I know it's a commonly held belief, no one has ever been able to provide me an answer that made a lot of sense without a lot of "in a perfect world" and too little reality in the answer: How is the government an honest broker?

by **VoxOrion** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 21:07:52

TenuredVulture wrote:Actual government involvement in the economy operates at a huge disconnect with anti-government rhetoric. And it isn't just US, but a growing body of international institutions that are supposed to smooth the waters of global commerce.

And while much of the Great Society has been gutted, there cornerstones of the New Deal, combined with the military industrial complex are here to stay--eliminating them would come at a huge political cost. The reason for this is that these programs are more comprehensive than things like TANF and Foodstamps. The beneficiaries of Social Security, Federal Student Loans and so forth comprise just about everyone.

I think that the expansion of SCHIPS proposed by the Democrats and vetoed by Bush was an attempt to create a kind of universal Medicare for Children, and that's why Congress came close to over-riding Bush's veto.

As far as wealth redistribution, no, I don't see much support for that at all.

I agree with you on the New Deal stuff. I think it was Fukuyama that convinced me (in State Building, I believe) that history shows successful countries go through a more socialist phase before emerging as a free market player.

I don't remember where I read it - but I remember being presented with an angle on the New Deal where it was a self defensive "middle ground" to stave off growing demand for something more like communism in the US.

As far as the disconnect between attitude toward the government and expectations, I agree that there is one. I'm flabbergasted at how people can expect, no demand, that their quality of life be measured by large houses, the amount of micro-brew in their fridge, the quality of their make-up and video game systems - yet are horrified at the idea that they should keep some money set aside to pay for perscription drugs that WILL HELP KEEP THEM ALIVE as opposed to entertain them.

I know the lefty argument is to race to the margins on this, but the reality isn't in the margins, and the demands for universal health-care as a human right doesn't just effect the margins.

It actually seems ironic to me that the left who in other cases tend to be crusaders against consumerism (in tone, not necessarily in practice) make the exception for perscriptions and health care. The cynic in me says it's because they see the health-care exception as a path to greater control over how the sheep live their lives (imagine if the people depend on the government for their very health! Leviathan here we come!), never mind the favorable voting bloc's created by government jobs.

by **TenuredVulture** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 21:43:09

Health care of course isn't quite the margins, and it's not a consumer good like high def tvs. Your consumption of health care has to do with how sick you are. I suppose there may be some people who just love going to the doctor--I mean, aren't you looking forward to your first colonoscopy? but most of us will avoid medical treatment as long as possible.

I do think we need to socialize health insurance, that is protect people from devastating financial loss (insurance is essentially socialistic in nature anyway) and separate that from employment and at the same time, have most people pay out of pocket for routine health expenses. Now, details will raise difficulties--should a c-section be considered routine?

As a percentage of GDP, our hybrid socialist/free market system costs twice as much as those with a more comprehensive national plans, and overall, we have worse outcomes. It harms our economic competitiveness as well.

by **dajafi** » Mon Jul 07, 2008 22:27:42

TomatoPie wrote:You cannot argue about the tax cuts, unless to say that they should have been cut more. Tax revenues are exceeding, by no small margin, all previous records and all estimates, even by tax-cut proponents. There can be no question that tax rates affect behavior.

Sensible persons...

Stop right there. At least on this issue, you're not a sensible person, you're an ideologue. Like anybody who believes that any single policy choice is always the right move in any situation.

I've posted this before, but let's try one more time:

TAX CUTS don't pay for themselves. This might sound like dog-bites-man news, except for one thing: This rather unremarkable statement comes from Jim Nussle, the new director of the Office of Management and Budget in an administration whose president is given to saying things like "You cut taxes, and the tax revenues increase" (February 2006) and "We have cut taxes, causing economic growth, which caused there to be this year alone 187 billion more tax dollars coming into the Treasury" (August 2007).

As Mr. Nussle acknowledges, "There are those including myself who . . . in the passion of the argument have made statements -- I think I even made a statement once -- that tax relief did pay for itself." In fact, Mr. Nussle said yesterday at a breakfast with reporters sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, "Some say that [the tax cut] was a total loss. Some say they totally pay for themselves. It's neither extreme."

This is not a merely academic debate, although no serious academic, including Mr. Bush's own economists, has argued that tax cuts produce enough additional economic growth to make up for lost revenue.

The real irresponsibility of course is cutting taxes like mad while not cutting spending. Again, that's what tends to happen when you put people like Grover Norquist, fanatics who actually think it would be cool to see the government go bankrupt, effectively in charge of economic policy. That won't happen, but we do have an incredibly weak dollar and less clout on the world stage than at any time since before WWII. Heckuva job, Bushie!

Archived

Terrorist Fist Bumps All Around (politics) Thread