Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old Yesterday, 10:08 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,862
Getting back to the OP (since we are veering far off thread), I don't think the true Tea Partiers are okay with Trump raising the deficit. And if they still support Trump over a (D), it would be like Planned Parenthood endorsing a pro-life Democrat over a pro-life Republican. Not ideal, but you take what you can get.
  #102  
Old Yesterday, 11:48 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Getting back to the OP (since we are veering far off thread), I don't think the true Tea Partiers are okay with Trump raising the deficit. And if they still support Trump over a (D), it would be like Planned Parenthood endorsing a pro-life Democrat over a pro-life Republican. Not ideal, but you take what you can get.
As I pointed out, though, if deficits are what matter to them then it's completely illogical for them to support Trump over a Democrat, because Democrats have a far better track record in recent years on reducing deficits than Republicans do (and Trump is one of the most deficit-expanding Republicans we've ever seen).

In fact, it turns out that Tea Party support for Trump has increased since he got going on his deficit-boosting shenanigans:
Quote:
Using survey data from 2014-18, Pew Research Center analysts found that respondents who were supportive of the tea party movement were also the most supportive of Trump, and that support has increased since his election.

A majority of tea party supporters Ė 61% Ė had ďwarm feelingsĒ for Trump in 2016, which jumped to 78% by 2018. [...]

Though Trump has consistently found majority support from GOP voters, his true base seems largely comprised of tea party Republicans, based on the survey data. That could present a problem for the presidentís re-election bid in 2020, because the data also revealed dwindling support for the movement. Since the height of the tea party in 2010, support dwindled from 49% to 28% in 2015.
My take on the Tea Party's attitude towards Trump and deficits is different from yours. ISTM that a significant chunk of the Tea Party was never really so much about fiscal policy as about trying to find a "respectable" platform onto which to displace concerns they weren't comfortable confronting or admitting to: primarily racial resentment caused by US demographic shifts and Obama's election, and anxieties about loss of economic security and social status that they can't bring themselves to admit are largely the result of policies championed by wealthy conservatives.

Trump's incoherent and nasty expressions of aggrieved entitlement, swaggering bigotry, and dismissive sneers aren't actually fixing any of these Tea Partiers' genuine problems, but he echoes a lot of the things they're thinking and makes them feel listened to and validated. They don't really care what he's doing to the deficit because for them, it was never really about the deficit in the first place.
  #103  
Old Today, 02:20 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
As I pointed out, though, if deficits are what matter to them then it's completely illogical for them to support Trump over a Democrat, because Democrats have a far better track record in recent years on reducing deficits than Republicans do (and Trump is one of the most deficit-expanding Republicans we've ever seen).
Tea Partiers want a very specific form of deficit-reduction: they want spending cuts. If a president raises taxes drastically, that would reduce the deficit, but that's not the kind they want.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
ISTM that a significant chunk of the Tea Party was never really so much about fiscal policy as about trying to find a "respectable" platform onto which to displace concerns they weren't comfortable confronting or admitting to: primarily racial resentment caused by US demographic shifts and Obama's election, and anxieties about loss of economic security and social status that they can't bring themselves to admit are largely the result of policies championed by wealthy conservatives.
Tea Partiers, like almost everyone, are practical when they have to be. If Trump gives them 70% of what they want, they know they'll have to be content with not getting the other 30%.

Many Democrats were less than thrilled with Obama's big defense budgets, drone strikes, and some other things in 2012, but they sure weren't going to vote for Mitt Romney.
  #104  
Old Today, 03:34 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Look you guys are having some real problems with this so Iím going to give you one more chart. Please cross reference the chart with the one I provided that shows taxes as a percentage of GDP remaining the same for 70 years. This is the chart that shows spending as a percentage of GDP. There is a clear trend. If you choose not to see it, that is another thing.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S

Thatís all Iím going to say on the topic because Iím going to get dinged if I keep trying to explain this concept to yíall. Good luck.
  #105  
Old Today, 04:24 AM
survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post

My take on the Tea Party's attitude towards Trump and deficits is different from yours. ISTM that a significant chunk of the Tea Party was never really so much about fiscal policy as about trying to find a "respectable" platform onto which to displace concerns they weren't comfortable confronting or admitting to: primarily racial resentment caused by US demographic shifts and Obama's election, and anxieties about loss of economic security and social status that they can't bring themselves to admit are largely the result of policies championed by wealthy conservatives.

Trump's incoherent and nasty expressions of aggrieved entitlement, swaggering bigotry, and dismissive sneers aren't actually fixing any of these Tea Partiers' genuine problems, but he echoes a lot of the things they're thinking and makes them feel listened to and validated. They don't really care what he's doing to the deficit because for them, it was never really about the deficit in the first place.
Good post. It never was about debt/deficits. That much is now clearly obvious.
  #106  
Old Today, 04:32 AM
survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 415
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Look you guys are having some real problems with this so Iím going to give you one more chart. Please cross reference the chart with the one I provided that shows taxes as a percentage of GDP remaining the same for 70 years. This is the chart that shows spending as a percentage of GDP. There is a clear trend. If you choose not to see it, that is another thing.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S

Thatís all Iím going to say on the topic because Iím going to get dinged if I keep trying to explain this concept to yíall. Good luck.
That chart doesn't support your talking point about there being a "drastic" increase in spending. The only noticeable blip since WW2 is during the Great Recession, when it's of course expected, and occurred at the same time that taxes plummeted to around 14% of GDP.

So, your view that our debt has been driven only by spending is not supported by the data at all. Spending has gone up some, and taxes have gone down some.
  #107  
Old Today, 07:35 AM
Robot Arm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Medford, MA
Posts: 23,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
My take on the Tea Party's attitude towards Trump and deficits is different from yours. ISTM that a significant chunk of the Tea Party was never really so much about fiscal policy as about trying to find a "respectable" platform onto which to displace concerns they weren't comfortable confronting or admitting to: primarily racial resentment caused by US demographic shifts and Obama's election, and anxieties about loss of economic security and social status that they can't bring themselves to admit are largely the result of policies championed by wealthy conservatives.

Trump's incoherent and nasty expressions of aggrieved entitlement, swaggering bigotry, and dismissive sneers aren't actually fixing any of these Tea Partiers' genuine problems, but he echoes a lot of the things they're thinking and makes them feel listened to and validated. They don't really care what he's doing to the deficit because for them, it was never really about the deficit in the first place.
I think a lot of people in the country are angry, but don't really know what they're angry about. Their world isn't perfect and it must be someone's fault. They've found groups, and news sources, and a political party that tell them their anger is justified and it's all the fault of <insert scapegoat here>. But don't worry, vote for <insert pandering politician here> and everything will be just fine.

In four years, when everything isn't just fine, they get a little bit angrier. The last scapegoat and pandering politician are conveniently forgotten, and the search begins for new ones. Lather, rinse, repeat.

In a sense, the Tea Party were angry about deficits. But all their anger and tax cutting didn't make their world perfect, so it's time to be angry about something else.

We all know what great decisions people make when they're angry, right?
  #108  
Old Today, 08:59 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
There is a clear trend.
As more people retire, more people are going to draw Medicare and Social Security benefits that they were guaranteed. Since there were fewer retirees in the past than today, and will be more in the future, spending on entitlements will go up for another couple decades, then head down again.

This has nothing to do with ideology, parties, or elections. Anyone who has paid attention to fiscal policy at any point in the last 50 years knew this would happen.
  #109  
Old Today, 09:48 AM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Trump's incoherent and nasty expressions of aggrieved entitlement, swaggering bigotry, and dismissive sneers aren't actually fixing any of these Tea Partiers' genuine problems, but he echoes a lot of the things they're thinking and makes them feel listened to and validated. They don't really care what he's doing to the deficit because for them, it was never really about the deficit in the first place.
From what I recall of the Tea Party's origins early in the Obama era, what they were most upset about was the idea that "their" tax dollars would be going to bail out underwater homeowners and failed businesses -- from their neighbor who refinanced a mortgage for kitchen remodeling up to and including AIG, Chase and Goldman Sachs. It was a classic cry of "I did everything right -- why should I have to help someone who did everything wrong?"

They never cared about the deficit. They had no sense of macro-economics at all. They just wanted to scapegoat those other people "who did everything wrong."

So of course they support the guy who tells them exactly who those people are. Deficits? Who gives a shit?
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #110  
Old Today, 12:59 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Tea Partiers want a very specific form of deficit-reduction: they want spending cuts.
But under Trump they're not getting spending cuts as "a form of deficit-reduction": they're getting spending cuts (generally targeted to "liberal" forms of expenditure such as social safety nets and environmental protection) accompanied by deficit increases.

This further reinforces the hypothesis that Tea Partiers really don't care about deficits qua deficits: what they want is a respectable-sounding reason to inflict spending cuts on people and aims they don't like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj
They never cared about the deficit. They had no sense of macro-economics at all. They just wanted to scapegoat those other people "who did everything wrong."

So of course they support the guy who tells them exactly who those people are. Deficits? Who gives a shit?
Yup.
  #111  
Old Today, 01:02 PM
Chisquirrel is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Tea Partiers want a very specific form of deficit-reduction: they want spending cuts. If a president raises taxes drastically, that would reduce the deficit, but that's not the kind they want.
AWESOME! Since 1962, the furthest back the White House offers information, the average Republican President increases discretionary spending over 25% faster than the average Democratic President. In fact, due to the compromise between Obama and Congress in 2011, discretionary spending ended up falling almost 1% per year.

By President, average annual increase/decrease, in 2012 dollars:

Kennedy: 1.22% increase
Johnson: 4.98% increase
Nixon: 3.64% decrease
Ford: 3.4% increase
Carter: 3.51% increase
Reagan: 1.52% increase
Bush: 0.09% decrease
Clinton: 0.55% decrease
Bush 2.0: 3.85% increase
Obama: 0.96% decrease
Trump: currently 1.05% increase

Three caveats, none resulting in partisan differences:
  1. Due to Kennedy's assasination in November of 1963, I cannot find who signed the 1964 budget. It has been attributed to Kennedy;
  2. Due to Nixon's resignation in August on 1974, I cannot find who signed the 1974 budget. It has been attributed to Nixon;
  3. The transition quarter of 1976 created an added "mini-budget' that screwed with my spreadsheet. As it occurs entirely during Ford's administration and hardly moves the needle in total effect, it has been discarded.

In the last 35 years, if you want discretionary spending to go down, elect a Democrat. If you want it to go up, elect a Republican.
  #112  
Old Today, 01:18 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robot Arm View Post
I think a lot of people in the country are angry, but don't really know what they're angry about. Their world isn't perfect and it must be someone's fault.
I think US conservatives have a more specific problem than that. Namely, they're locked into cognitive dissonance about which ideology is actually at the root of their economic problems. American right-wingers have been thoroughly indoctrinated in the notion that problems are all the fault of the "liberal elites", with their anticonservative movements for desegregation and women's lib and gay rights and acceptance of diverse family structures and whatnot, to the extent that they're very unwilling to recognize the harm being deliberately inflicted on them by conservative elites.

So they do a lot of angry flailing around about "taxes" and "identity politics" and "political correctness" and "socialism", none of which is actually responsible for the huge spike in their insulin prices or the closure of their local factory, and they keep voting for more conservative elites who also make angry-sounding speeches about "taxes" and "identity politics" and "political correctness" and "socialism". And none of it helps their problems because the conservative elites they're electing don't in fact give a shit about their problems, but they can't acknowledge that because they've invested so heavily in the mistaken notion that the conservative elites are somehow "on their side".
  #113  
Old Today, 02:13 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
In the last 35 years, if you want discretionary spending to go down, elect a Democrat. If you want it to go up, elect a Republican.
Which of the Democrats running for President in 2020 are going to decrease spending, and how and by how much?

Regards,
Shodan
  #114  
Old Today, 02:28 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,594
Would it be Bernie Sanders? Elizabeth Warren? Joe Biden?

Regards,
Shodan
  #115  
Old Today, 02:44 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Which of the Democrats running for President in 2020 are going to decrease spending, and how and by how much?
All of them.

How much? "One Greenland"

I'm not sure exactly how much a Greenland is, but we can decrease spending by at least that much by going Democrat.
  #116  
Old Today, 02:46 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Yeah, we must be in bizarro world if either one of those candidates actually wanted to cut the largest part of the discretionary budget, which is the military.

I mean, how many times have we heard Warren and Bernie talk about the need to buy more weapons??
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:52 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017