For those of you who might not remember, in 1992 the Clinton campaign had a sort of unofficial slogan of "It's the economy, stupid." The basic idea was that a recession is always bad for whomever is in power. Business cycles don't matter, who did (or didn't) do what when doesn't matter. During a recession, incumbants are screwed at the ballot box. Sure enough, George Bush Sr., extremely popular earlier in his term, was shown the door. Frankly, I think the idea has some merit. Further, I think we'll see the same thing tomorrow. In ten years, no one is going to remember any "sea change" in politics; the tea party; or, frankly, much of anything beyond "it's the economy, stupid."
Why I am posting this? I'm getting tired of the pundits. In 2008, the same pundits said the Republican party was dead. In 2004, it was the Democrats who were finished. Now the tea party is "rising up to demand fiscal discipline." Fiscal discipline my @$$. Is the cycle really so inscrutable? And why do we go out of our way to separate the country into armed camps?
Tomorrow the Republicans will pick up seats, though I think they'll come up just short of a majority in the Senate. Either way, though, it won't matter: In two years, if the recession is over, Obama gets re-elected. If it isn't, he doesn't -- it's just that simple. But no matter who is elected president in 2012, and no matter who controls congress, the USA will still be running a deficit. Why? Because as soon as the dust from the election settles and the immediate pain of recession eases, we're going to go right back to being collectively unwilling to actually do the heavy-lifting true fiscal responsibility demands.
Sorry for the rant -- I'm just frustrated.
The reason we separate out like that is because conflict sells. The media's purpose is not to inform, it is to earn a profit, and to do so it gives us divisiveness. As the stories are more accessible, you will see this more often. Perhaps it will lead to a state of hyperpluralism, where every wedge issue has been used and there is no majority faction. But we aren't there yet.
Personally, all I'm hoping for the election is to see one Libertarian elected to the Legislative branch. I doubt it will happen... but a guy can dream. ;)
|
For those of you who might not remember, in 1992 the Clinton campaign had a sort of unofficial slogan of "It's the economy, stupid." The basic idea was that a recession is always bad for whomever is in power. Business cycles don't matter, who did (or didn't) do what when doesn't matter. During a recession, incumbants are screwed at the ballot box. Sure enough, George Bush Sr., extremely popular earlier in his term, was shown the door. Frankly, I think the idea has some merit. Further, I think we'll see the same thing tomorrow. In ten years, no one is going to remember any "sea change" in politics; the tea party; or, frankly, much of anything beyond "it's the economy, stupid."
Why I am posting this? I'm getting tired of the pundits. In 2008, the same pundits said the Republican party was dead. In 2004, it was the Democrats who were finished. Now the tea party is "rising up to demand fiscal discipline." Fiscal discipline my @$$. Is the cycle really so inscrutable? And why do we go out of our way to separate the country into armed camps?
Tomorrow the Republicans will pick up seats, though I think they'll come up just short of a majority in the Senate. Either way, though, it won't matter: In two years, if the recession is over, Obama gets re-elected. If it isn't, he doesn't -- it's just that simple. But no matter who is elected president in 2012, and no matter who controls congress, the USA will still be running a deficit. Why? Because as soon as the dust from the election settles and the immediate pain of recession eases, we're going to go right back to being collectively unwilling to actually do the heavy-lifting true fiscal responsibility demands.
Sorry for the rant -- I'm just frustrated.
One minor quibble. Bush 41 lost because of Perot, who siphoned off 17% of the vote, none of whom were likely Democrat voters. If Perot didn't have a following, Bush more likely than not would have buried Clinton, who only got 43% of the vote that year.
Clinton also recovered from 94 by co-opting the Republican message and turning it into his own after learning the lessons of his (disastrous) first two years. Obama doesn't have the experience, nor the savvy, Clinton had, isn't nearly as charismatic as Clinton, and isn't surrounded by the quality of adviser Clinton had.
As far as the "armed camps" goes, when you have an entire class of politician completely out of touch with the average American (read: right wing religious whackos and left wing Cali and Northeast whackos) driving the agenda for both parties, you have problems. Couple that with the "conventional wisdom" both parties spew about third party votes being "wasted" and the average voter intelligence being below that of a damaged rock, well, you have problems.
Bottom line, we get the government we deserve, and since we're collectively (left and right) idiots, we deserve this.
One minor quibble. Bush 41 lost because of Perot, who siphoned off 17% of the vote, none of whom were likely Democrat voters. If Perot didn't have a following, Bush more likely than not would have buried Clinton, who only got 43% of the vote that year.
Clinton also recovered from 94 by co-opting the Republican message and turning it into his own after learning the lessons of his (disastrous) first two years. Obama doesn't have the experience, nor the savvy, Clinton had, isn't nearly as charismatic as Clinton, and isn't surrounded by the quality of adviser Clinton had.
We'll see. Personally, I remain convinced all that pretty much all that will matter in 2012 is the health of the economy. As soon as jobs start to come back the tough budget talk will evaporate, and we'll be right back to our slow-suicide-by-deficit malaise.
As far as the "armed camps" goes, when you have an entire class of politician completely out of touch with the average American (read: right wing religious whackos and left wing Cali and Northeast whackos) driving the agenda for both parties, you have problems. Couple that with the "conventional wisdom" both parties spew about third party votes being "wasted" and the average voter intelligence being below that of a damaged rock, well, you have problems.Bottom line, we get the government we deserve, and since we're collectively (left and right) idiots, we deserve this.
I go back and forth on this, but I don't think it's simply that we're morons. It seems like there is a whole lot of money to be made selling fear and anger, and though I suppose we are rather foolish for buying, I can't see how that's a new situation.
Go, Squirrel-girl!
That's the best super hero name ever.
Is her super power getting cars to swerve to avoid her, and storing acorns in trees?
swerve to avoid... I think I've been doing it wrong.
Go, Squirrel-girl!
That's the best super hero name ever.
Is her super power getting cars to swerve to avoid her, and storing acorns in trees?
I love Squirrel Girl!
swerve to avoid... I think I've been doing it wrong.Go, Squirrel-girl!
That's the best super hero name ever.
Is her super power getting cars to swerve to avoid her, and storing acorns in trees?
It provides replayability in the game. You get more gasoline from hitting them, but if you swerve to avoid every time, you get a slightly better ending.
Bottom line, we get the government we deserve, and since we're collectively (left and right) idiots, we deserve this.
Ah, me. The strangest places in the world exist only as electrons on the internet. I've been reading these boards for a while now, and houstonderek and I don't agree politically about much. In base tenets, maybe. In practical application of political power and the law, probably very little. But then he says this little gem...
Which I have been saying for years. I claim no originality. But I completely agree. How could I not? We live in a representative democracy, so we DO get what we (collectively, not individually) deserve.
As a people, we love to vote for whoever promises us the moon, and throws in a few stars. If we don't get the moon...
...we get all petulant, and vote for the opposition party. Maybe THEY can get us the moon!
Putting that aside, it is important to go vote. Every election, no exceptions. If anything is to ever improve, it will require a well-educated, active electorate. So go - get your learn on and vote, even if you're not voting the way I wish you would. Because, after all, we only get the government we deserve, and if we give no effort, we deserve nothing.
It is called kick the can down the road. The voters don't want to see their government handouts cut, so the politicians run up the deficits and kick the can.
But sometime from now, probably between 2015 and 2020, people are going to realize that the government can't keep all its financial promises, most likely when it starts defaulting in some way. Then you will see a lot of people dependent on the government abandoned, especially the elderly and sick.
Everyone needs to develop a means of not being dependent on government handouts...that is why I don't ever plan on retiring. By the time I am old enough to retire, retirement will be only something the rich can afford and a distant memory for everyone else.
As for unemployment, I am unfortunately pretty confident it will stay the same or go up between now and 2012. The economy is too uncertain for most businesses to grow. Dramatic government spending cuts and tax cuts to match would help a lot, but no one wants to do this now.
I have to agree on the retirement front. I don't see myself retiring, or if I do, it would be in extreme old age. Would you say the perception of retirement is problematic with respect to where we are today or would we have been here anyway?
I do think we would have been here anyway, as the only thing that could have stopped this would have been to keep pushing the retirement age up as life expectancy increased.
QFT: This is exactly what we should be doing. Make it (Average Life Expectancy - 10), adjusted annually, with the caveat that once you are eligible for full benefits, you don't lost eligibility (which is likely the case anyway).
I'm 38, and I'm fine with it if it keeps us solvent.
|
For those of you who might not remember, in 1992 the Clinton campaign had a sort of unofficial slogan of "It's the economy, stupid." The basic idea was that a recession is always bad for whomever is in power. Business cycles don't matter, who did (or didn't) do what when doesn't matter. During a recession, incumbants are screwed at the ballot box. Sure enough, George Bush Sr., extremely popular earlier in his term, was shown the door. Frankly, I think the idea has some merit. Further, I think we'll see the same thing tomorrow. In ten years, no one is going to remember any "sea change" in politics; the tea party; or, frankly, much of anything beyond "it's the economy, stupid."
That's a huge piece but I would suggest that it's not 'just' the economy.
Both political parties have a set of issues which appeal to their core constituency and when they get in power they work to please that core constituency. The more moderate voters don't WANT what the core of either of the political parties want. So nearly anytime one party or the other gets in control they wind up doing things that the moderate independent voters don't like and they get the boot next election.
Since the fringes are so polarized the independent/ moderate voters control elections. This is why candidates change so much between the primaries and the public elections.
In this election it's a double whammy for the Democrats. They pushed through some policy that's pretty unpopular with the independents and the economy is in the crapper so they are getting trashed.
That's a huge piece but I would suggest that it's not 'just' the economy.Both political parties have a set of issues which appeal to their core constituency and when they get in power they work to please that core constituency. The more moderate voters don't WANT what the core of either of the political parties want. So nearly anytime one party or the other gets in control they wind up doing things that the moderate independent voters don't like and they get the boot next election.
Thats pretty insightful. While I always new that there was about 20% of the US public that actually decides who wins because these are the guys that go back and fourth your analysis helps to explain why this group tends to tack back and fourth and makes a lot of sense.
Thats pretty insightful. While I always new that there was about 20% of the US public that actually decides who wins because these are the guys that go back and fourth your analysis helps to explain why this group tends to tack back and fourth and makes a lot of sense.
Hmmm...I'm more inclined to go with:
"As a people, we love to vote for whoever promises us the moon, and throws in a few stars. If we don't get the moon....we get all petulant, and vote for the opposition party. Maybe THEY can get us the moon!"