reflections on the elections...

[Conan71]

The irony of all that is that if you listen to the left, they've been complaining that Obama and the Senate have been governing and legislating from the center, not the left, while the Republicans have stated quite clearly that they're not interested in moving toward the center in the least.

I think if people still hate HCR in 2015, it should probably be modified. Until then, it hasn't had a chance to work, and any opposition is based on either ideology, speculation, or outright lies, rather than any actual problem with the legislation itself. Nobody wants a health care policy that ends up costing a fortune and does nothing to abate the growth in overall health care spending. Given that it is premised on unpredictable future behavior, it ought to be given a chance to have its premises proven or disproven.

It's an expensive experiment.  If we gutted the program as a failure in 2015, what becomes of all the people hired by the feds to man the program?  That's one thing about government: once a bureaucracy is in motion it's damn near impossible to dismantle it.  In fact it takes an act of Congress 

I'd hate to see the agenda items passed if the left was placated right now.  Fiscal conservatism will work, but the GOP needs to abandon the idea of governing from the pulpit.  Leave the social issues alone like gay marriage and abortion and tackle the economy.  Extend the Bush tax cuts for two more years, then once the economy is showing a better recovery, get busy paying down the debt and we all need to share in the pain of higher tax rates to pay it down.  We simply cannot rack up debt forever.

I heard or read somewhere that individuals and corporations are sitting on about $9 trillion in cash right now.  If tax cuts are what business owners are claiming will help them hire, fine give them the tax cuts for a couple of years.  If nothing changes, take them away.  If business owners say Obamacare is a disincentive to hire, give them a better opportunity to opt out without it amounting to a penalty.

The biggest priority with upwards of 15 mm people out of work is to create an environment which will inspire enough confidence for people to start spending money and small business to start hiring again.  Confidence matters far more than economic theory right now.  This is where we are at: you can be from the Keynes school, the Friedman school, a Marxist, capitalist, etc.  The answer to what is going on with the economy now can more likely be found in schools of thought in sociology and psychology. 

[Conan71]

And here's a fascinating gem from the exit polling, further bolstering my contention it was more about the economy and the apparent Congressional deadlock than anything else:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1789/2010-midterm-elections-exit-poll-analysis

We all need to read and digest that page. People are rightly pissed about the economy, and they're going to vote out incumbents en masse until it gets fixed. The only mandate this election provided (at least as manifest in this particular exit poll) was for not extending the tax cuts on people earning more than $250,000 a year or not extending them at all. On every other issue support was surprisingly evenly divided.

There's an interesting metric I read in that:

Voters who called themselves moderate in '08 voted heavily Democrat.  In 2010, they voted heavily GOP.  Pretty much the same thing happened with those identified as independents. 

I'm curious where the broad swing came from.  Is it that moderates can be easily swayed enough to abandon one party for another or aren't committed enough to one ideology or another to consistently vote for a party?  Or were they thinking that those who called the Obama agenda radical were smoking crack?

I always vote for and support the best candidate in a given race.  I've likely voted for as many Democrats as Republicans over the years or pretty close.  It's not that I'm a chameleon, I simply don't care for deep partisanship.  I'm pretty socially liberal and don't believe we should be trying to legislate morality but I'm a staunch fiscal conservative and I don't tend to waffle on my beliefs. 

[Hoss]

There's an interesting metric I read in that:

Voters who called themselves moderate in '08 voted heavily Democrat.  In 2010, they voted heavily GOP.  Pretty much the same thing happened with those identified as independents. 

I'm curious where the broad swing came from.  Is it that moderates can be easily swayed enough to abandon one party for another or aren't committed enough to one ideology or another to consistently vote for a party?  Or were they thinking that those who called the Obama agenda radical were smoking crack?

I always vote for and support the best candidate in a given race.  I've likely voted for as many Democrats as Republicans over the years or pretty close.  It's not that I'm a chameleon, I simply don't care for deep partisanship.  I'm pretty socially liberal and don't believe we should be trying to legislate morality but I'm a staunch fiscal conservative and I don't tend to waffle on my beliefs. 

Whig Party!  New Whigs!

[Cats Cats Cats]

It's an expensive experiment.  If we gutted the program as a failure in 2015, what becomes of all the people hired by the feds to man the program?  That's one thing about government: once a bureaucracy is in motion it's damn near impossible to dismantle it.  In fact it takes an act of Congress 

I'd hate to see the agenda items passed if the left was placated right now.  Fiscal conservatism will work, but the GOP needs to abandon the idea of governing from the pulpit.  Leave the social issues alone like gay marriage and abortion and tackle the economy.  Extend the Bush tax cuts for two more years, then once the economy is showing a better recovery, get busy paying down the debt and we all need to share in the pain of higher tax rates to pay it down.  We simply cannot rack up debt forever.

I heard or read somewhere that individuals and corporations are sitting on about $9 trillion in cash right now.  If tax cuts are what business owners are claiming will help them hire, fine give them the tax cuts for a couple of years.  If nothing changes, take them away.  If business owners say Obamacare is a disincentive to hire, give them a better opportunity to opt out without it amounting to a penalty.

The biggest priority with upwards of 15 mm people out of work is to create an environment which will inspire enough confidence for people to start spending money and small business to start hiring again.  Confidence matters far more than economic theory right now.  This is where we are at: you can be from the Keynes school, the Friedman school, a Marxist, capitalist, etc.  The answer to what is going on with the economy now can more likely be found in schools of thought in sociology and psychology. 

So the best thing for America is to inspire confidence.  Even though Obama lowered taxes what was the best for America was to inspire more confidence.  Fox news whole goal was to spread fear and not inspire confidence.  So that must make them bad for America.

[Townsend]

Fox news whole goal was to spread fear and not inspire confidence.  So that must make them bad for America.

Wouldn't be so bad if people understood it's mostly fabricated with a few news articles thrown in.

[Conan71]

So the best thing for America is to inspire confidence.  Even though Obama lowered taxes what was the best for America was to inspire more confidence.  Fox news whole goal was to spread fear and not inspire confidence.  So that must make them bad for America.

And MSNBC will do their best to scare immigrants they will be deported, senior citizens will have to eat Alpo, and children will be running around in the street shoe-less with Republican control.  All things which will make people hang on to money as well.  

Everyone needs to spend less time listening to talking heads like Hannity, Limpbaugh, Olbermann, and Madcow, and pay attention to the facts.  Unfortunately too many Americans have been duped into believing blatant editorializing is stone-cold fact.  That's why I usually will do my own research when I happen to catch something on the radio or television before I will bring it up on here or elsewhere as being Gospel.

[Conan71]

Whig Party!  New Whigs!

Let's go!

[RecycleMichael]

Everyone needs to spend less time listening to talking heads like Hannity, Limpbaugh, Olbermann, and Madcow, and pay attention to the facts.  Unfortunately too many Americans have been duped into believing blatant editorializing is stone-cold fact.  

+1

I swear these people make a commission on dumbing down America.

I really tried to listen to Rush and Hannity while driving during the day and then dilute the rhetoric with watching Olberman and Madow at night. I finally realized they were all lying.

[Conan71]

+1

I swear these people make a commission on dumbing down America.

I really tried to listen to Rush and Hannity while driving during the day and then dilute the rhetoric with watching Olberman and Madow at night. I finally realized they were all lying.

I'm convinced that whole lot is on the RNC and DNC payrolls.  I may pick up on an issue off one of them or Neil Boortz, but again, then I go into research mode to see how far their comment has strayed from fact.

You were channelled by Joe Kelley this morning by the way.  They were trying to figure out something about composting pumpkins and he said it was a good question for Recyclemichael.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Conan said;
I heard or read somewhere that individuals and corporations are sitting on about $9 trillion in cash right now.  If tax cuts are what business owners are claiming will help them hire, fine give them the tax cuts for a couple of years.  If nothing changes, take them away.  If business owners say Obamacare is a disincentive to hire, give them a better opportunity to opt out without it amounting to a penalty.


I agree.  And they have HAD 9 years to do exactly that - and have NOT.  So, as directed by George Bush and the Republican controlled Congress, and agreed to by the Democrats, it is PAST time to take them away.  Nothing wrong with making a rich person pay his "fair share" of 18 or 19% (instead of 16%) compared to the 40% the rest of us have to pay!

[Red Arrow]

I agree.  And they have HAD 9 years to do exactly that - and have NOT.  So, as directed by George Bush and the Republican controlled Congress, and agreed to by the Democrats, it is PAST time to take them away.

I was doing OK until about mid 2006.

[nathanm]

Interestingly, Conan, more of the electorate falls on the "don't extend the tax cuts for people making over $250,000 a year" side than don't, again according to the exit polling data. The "keep the tax cuts for everyone" bloc is slightly larger than the "keep the tax cuts for the middle class only" bloc, but there's also a sizable minority who think none of the Bush tax cuts should be extended. I hope for the Democrats' sake they don't cave to the Republicans on this, lest they once again be in a position of pissing off most of the electorate to placate a vocal minority.

The moderates appear to want bipartisanship and deficit cutting, weren't seeing that (or a convincing argument as to why that desire is wrong), so picked the only other option out there, even though they hate 'em as much or more than the Democrats. So in one way, the "party of no" policy worked pretty well. However, I think if the moderates see that continue, it's only going to help Obama and the Democrats in 2012. They want bipartisan solutions and aren't getting them.

Personally, I think bipartisanship is a stupid ideal. Sometimes one side is correct and the other is incorrect. That said, it's plainly obvious that most voters disagree with that idea, or at least claim to.

[Red Arrow]

Sometimes one side is correct and the other is incorrect. That said, it's plainly obvious that most voters disagree with that idea, or at least claim to.

Probably most voters agree that one side or the other is correct but they also recongize that nothing would get done.  Sometimes that's good compared to what we get.

[Conan71]

Interestingly, Conan, more of the electorate falls on the "don't extend the tax cuts for people making over $250,000 a year" side than don't, again according to the exit polling data. The "keep the tax cuts for everyone" bloc is slightly larger than the "keep the tax cuts for the middle class only" bloc, but there's also a sizable minority who think none of the Bush tax cuts should be extended. I hope for the Democrats' sake they don't cave to the Republicans on this, lest they once again be in a position of pissing off most of the electorate to placate a vocal minority.

The moderates appear to want bipartisanship and deficit cutting, weren't seeing that (or a convincing argument as to why that desire is wrong), so picked the only other option out there, even though they hate 'em as much or more than the Democrats. So in one way, the "party of no" policy worked pretty well. However, I think if the moderates see that continue, it's only going to help Obama and the Democrats in 2012. They want bipartisan solutions and aren't getting them.

Personally, I think bipartisanship is a stupid ideal. Sometimes one side is correct and the other is incorrect. That said, it's plainly obvious that most voters disagree with that idea, or at least claim to.

Of course most of the electorate falls on the "don't extend tax cuts for those making more than $250K per year" because the majority of the electorate doesn't fall into that income bracket.  That's hardly scientific.  Everyone is for a tax increase until they are the one being hit.  It's easy to look at those making under $250K looking at those over that threshold and thinking they make more than enough so they should shoulder more of the burden.

Look, I'm not commenting on the true economic merits one way or the other of taking away a 3% tax break that's being afforded right now.  I'm simply saying we should call their bluff and see what happens or see what the next excuse is for hoarding cash.  It's much like your notion of giving Obamacare until 2015 so we can really see what happens with most all provisions operating in the scheme er plan.  Human behavior has far more to do with what is going on than economic theory.

[nathanm]

Conversely, we could let them all expire and see what happens.