It has only become mainstream within the past three years or so. Prior to that point, from about 1982 onwards, "Keynesian" was practically a pejorative.
Printable View
It has only become mainstream within the past three years or so. Prior to that point, from about 1982 onwards, "Keynesian" was practically a pejorative.
False. New Keynesian theories came to prominence in the 1990's. And even Reagan's supply side economics ironically had some Keynesian trappings when he put the oodles of money he had into Defense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
What nation does not subscribe to some level of Kensyian economics?
Call me paranoid, but the appearance of Giffords at the end of this debalce proves to me that this was all a manufactured incident, particularly if ones considers we had the exact same dance with the budget a few months back.
This is Washington's way of reminding us that they are on control. The appearance of Giffords was Washington's way of reminding us that Washington cares. During this pre-planned crisis, Washington and their cronies likley got richer, as Congress is exempt from insider trading laws.
The deal itself is a total sham from what I've seen of it. The only real cuts are the cuts that take place in 2012. And they amount to about 2/10ths of one percent of federal spending. If trimming a fraction of a percent from our bloated government nearly collapsed civilization as we know it.... we're pretty well screwed aren't we? As so often is the case with Congress, this was a meaningless gesture.
It's worth noting that even in the glorious 90's we were only running a surplus if you didn't count entitlements. In reality our budget problems were still mounting even then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Indeed. :shame:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
If there is any solace to be had, it's that this whole ordeal seems to have seriously damaged Obama in the leadership department and sidelined the planned summer 'Mediscare', which will hopefully contribute to the election of a new president more willing to seriously address spending. We'll see if it lasts, or if he gets a bump for at least averting default (not that he had anything to do with it).
Representative Emanuel Cleaver, a Missouri Democrat, said: "This deal is a
sugar-coated Satan sandwich. If you lift the bun, you will not like what you see."
Lol. Oh the wailing and gnashing of teeth!
With Satan fries on the side: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid..._the_side.html
Interesting read -- from a certain perspective, the Tea Party's insistence on a showdown over the debt ceiling is just another episode in a long history of Southern exceptionalism.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...urmania/01.jpg https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...mania/02-1.jpg
Contradicting the mainstream media narrative that the Tea Party is a new populist movement that formed spontaneously in reaction to government bailouts or the Obama administration, the facts show that the Tea Party in Congress is merely the familiar old neo-Confederate Southern right under a new label. [...] From the earliest years of the American republic, white Southern conservatives when they have lost elections and found themselves in the political minority have sought to extort concession from national majorities by paralyzing or threatening to destroy the United States. [...]
The debt ceiling crisis is the latest case in which the radical right in the South has held America hostage until its demands are met. Presidents Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln refused to appease the Southern fanatics. Unfortunately, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress chose not to follow their example and instead gave in. In doing so, they have encouraged the neo-Confederate minority in Congress to find yet another opportunity in the near future to extort concessions from America's majority by sabotaging America's government.
Kinda over-the-top, but an interesting read.
In response to this I propose that the North East secede. :laugh4:
I find this article ignorant and annoying. Maybe the party finds itself disgusted with the actions of the democratic party and decided to finally do something and actually do what they tell their constituents. I am tired of this being treated as such a disaster that the democrats and Obama managed to avert. His constant description of the proponents of what just happened as radicals annoys me quite a bit. I do not see myself as a radical yet I am glad they did what they did. Not to mention the south has not always been a bastion of conservative thought especially in the early days of the republic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Annoying I can see. Ignorant? The Tea Party has members in every state, but there's a definite regional flavor to the movement, as demonstrated by the makeup of the Tea Party Caucus. The author ain't wrong about that. And he's absolutely correct that when the South doesn't get its way, it has a longstanding history of starting fights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
None of which is to say that I agree with the article, but it's a worthwhile read.
More like disingenuous. To try and inject regionalism into the debt debate reflects both an understanding of history and a willingness to distort it to make a contrived point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Obviously Tea Party types were more likely to actually win elections in districts that were solidly Republican from the outset, as all they had to do was win primaries - which requires more enthusiasm but fewer votes. The fact that a majority were elected from the solid South reflects the dominance of the Republican party more than any special enthusiasm for the Tea Party. The same phenomenon can be seen in the Northeast where extremely liberal lawmakers often represent conservative, working class districts. Voting (D) is so engrained in the culture - usually because of past or present union activity - that all a liberal has to do to win is win the primary.
The Tea Party is based far more in Southwestern libertarianism than traditional Southern conservatism, which is more concerned with social rather than fiscal issues. The fact that Tea Party candidates were able to win elections more easily in the South doesn't actually demonstrate a stronger concentration of support, but a stronger Republican establishment. Nationally, about 40% of voters in the 2010 elections nominally supported to the movement, and the intensity of that support had no real regional correlation.
Definitely an interesting read though. It's never a bad thing to look at a situation from a completely different perspective.
Although there were no revenue increases this time, we are crazy if we think that the bush tax cuts aren't going to get the chopping block and be replaced by a new tax cut plan sponsored by the Obama admin. They know that puppy is a gonner, and that's why democrats are relatively content to let these cuts in.
Not to quibble, but 40% is way outside every poll I've seen on the subject. Most polls peg Tea Party support at somewhere around 14%-13% of the electorate. Moreover, the poll that that blog links to doesn't back up the assertion. Kinda strange.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Support, favorability, or membership? The three are different, but often get confused. Support and favorability have always outstripped membership by quite a bit. Favorability maxed out at 39% in Gallup and, iirc, got a bit over 40% in some other polls at the height of the movement's positive intensity during the run up to the 2010 elections.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Good catch. The author of the blog probably used support and favorability interchangeably. Actual support was more like 30% instead of 40%.
I thought in the US only 40% of the electorate vote.
If the Tea Party is 13-14% of the electorate and they all vote, then they would form around 35% of the voters. (.14/.4)
40% of the voters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Yes, let me get this straight: 40% of the voters, you say. Who supposedly are only 40% of the electorate, according to Papewaio. So the means 0.4*0.4 == 0.16, i.e 16% of the electorate, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
Well, the polling I've seen consistently pegs Tea Party self-identification at between 14% and 13% of the voting electorate. So make of that number what you will.
I think definitions are in order.
Electorate: All who can vote.
Voters: All who did vote. Of which approx 40% of the Electorate do so.
Voting Electorate = Voters.
So it the Tea Party is only 14% of the voters, are they 40% of the Republican vote?
The party-identification breakdowns I have seen are all taken from people who have voted. So they are samples of the estimated 40% of the voting public. So when 27% say they are Republican, that's 27% of the 40%. Likewise the numbers I've seen for self-identified Tea Party members, who are consistently pegged at 14%-13% of the voting population, the 40% we're talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
How solid are we on that 40% number, anyway?
If there is a large group 14% who are voting lockstep, that is more then enough to make a huge impact when elections are often won by less then a couple of percent.
Much like the impact teeny bopper purchases have on which music is considered most popular because they vote as a hivemind.
An organised actively voting block of voters will first be able to chose their candidate and then get him into office... much easier if the number of voters is a low percentage.
Personally if you have the right to vote in an election and don't do so, you forgo the right to bitch and moan about the state of your town/city/state/country. If the candidates all suck, then vote out the incumbent at the minimum.
Hah, that's my prime directive at the ballot box -- unless there's a compelling reason to do otherwise, vote against the incumbent. Of course, these WI ballots often don't tell you who the incumbent is. So as much as I may want to vote out the current county water commissioner, I wind up having to go with the more interesting last name. I AM THE DEATH OF DEMOCRACY!
Keep in mind the vast majority of Tea Party voters were solid Republican votes before the movement began and their electoral success largely had to do with a shift in independent voters away from the Democrats. Their intensity does have a major impact on primaries, though, and can even be detrimental as was seen in a number of senate elections during the 2010 cycle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
That's what I was talking about earlier in relation to the regional support for the Tea Party. They ran candidates all over the country and enjoyed varied levels of support that were not particularly regionally correlated, but those candidates had a higher chance of winning in the South because more districts in the South are predisposed to pull the lever for (R) regardless of the name in front of it.
PJ is basically right but I would like to point out Goldwater conservativism only cuaght on in the south becuase it was suicide to be George Wallace on a national stage
The shift from "Segragation now, Segragation Tommorow, Segeragation forever" to "Keep government off my medicare" is a well documented one here in dixie and its one outsiders dont trully understand
To see how the dont understand, let's see how many times Im called ignorant in the succeeding posts
Really? Then why are Republican state legislators working like Japanese beavers across the country to restrict abortion rights across America? Why is Michelle Bachmann, darling of the Tea Party "Movement", so concerned with homosexuals? Why did the Tea Party mobilise to protest the "Ground Zero Mosque", the mosque-that-wasn't several blocks from the WTC site? Leaving aside particular criticisms of these various positions, it's disingenous to claim that the Tea Party is primarily a fiscally conservative movement; after all, why did they want to their legislators to take action that would have caused America's interest on its debt to skyrocket if they were fiscally conservative?Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
I thought the Tea Party was anti-GOP establishment.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
with all this whingeing about tax cuts and america being undertaxted i feel it is time to introduce a little adam smith:
http://adamsmith.org/files/tax-paper-final(1).pdf
it always seemed to me that the tea party is a movement primarily fueled by conservative views on social issues (abortion, gays), a serious racial bias against the current president and also fiscal concerns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
Of course the first 2 reasons are not particularly politically correct in this day and age, so the people that are taking charge of the movement pushed the fiscal aspect of it forward.
Of course there are people in the movement motivated only by fiscal issues and nothing else, but the type of rhetoric that is used to inflame the majority of the tea party base is pretty transparent regarding its bias on social issues.
In other words....the pundits might be talking about fiscal matters, the crowd is not necessarily there for that.
Because the Tea Party is primarily an anti-tax movement, not a fiscal conservative movement. Important distinction. Also, I'll be very curious to see if the Tea Party continues with anything like its current energy when there's no longer a Dem in the White House. I suspect the answers is "no."Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan