Middle class leaning Pub for economic interests -- even though data show that's wrong

[Robot_Arm]

@BrainGlutton

Bush implemented tax cuts at the start of a war. I have never heard of any other national leader doing that stupid thing. And of course a giant deficit was the inevitable result.

Don’t forget Medicare Part D, a Republican plan all the way.

[BobLibDem]

@Robot_Arm

Don’t forget Medicare Part D, a Republican plan all the way.

Which was completely unfunded as well. Yet, deficits are all Obama’s fault.

[Evil_Captor]

@Robot_Arm

I think the best thing would be to get the trends going in the right direction. Get the deficit lower each year than the one before. Keep doing that for a decade or so and we might have a little more budgetary breathing room. And then don’t squander that breathing room.

A very sensible plan. But Republicans get elected to office far too often to make such a plan tenable. They love war and feel it’s an excuse to let the budget go hang.

[Evil_Captor]

@adaher

Yeah, but Republicans need to stop doing it. One of the real advantages Republicans had before Reagan was being the party of fiscal responsibility. We need to take that back. It’s a huge handicap for Republicans when talking about fiscal issues. The next Republican President has to balance the budget. It needs to be THE priority.

He’ll want to balance the budget by gutting Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare and getting rid of TANF, as well as lowering taxes on the wealthy and waiting for the golden showers to trickle down to the rest of us. It won’t work and will make him deeply hated.

[Evil_Captor]

Ladies and gentlemen, the author of all our problems: Owsley County, Kentucky. 99 percent white, 95 percent Republican voters, and with the largest percentage of food stamp recipients in the country. These people are so stupid that words just fail me.

[BobLibDem]

@Evil_Captor

No, there’s a thing called “objective reality” out there. One’s perspective on things like climate change, evolution and trickle down economics does not matter … the facts are in. And the fact is, America has been drifting to the right for decades.

On gay rights, I think that would be incorrect.

Abortion- I think the split has been the same for years.

Racial issues- I think the trend is leftward.

Military and police worship- sure that’s increased

[adaher]

Gay rights is the only one of those issues where we’re going left. On race, immigration, guns, police/military, taxes, and abortion, we’re moving to the right. To elaborate on race, SOCIALLY we’re always moving towards more tolerance, but we’re also becoming more skeptical or even angry at government policies in regards to race.

Besides, liberals need to figure out what they think about race in places where it’s Latino vs. black vs. Asian rather than a white/black thing. Because you’ve got a budding war right now between Kamala Harris and Antonio Villagairosa in California for Boxer’s Senate seat. And it’s going to center around racial grievance because the DNC can’t stay out of it and just let voters decide.

[BrainGlutton]

@adaher

Besides, liberals need to figure out what they think about race in places where it’s Latino vs. black vs. Asian rather than a white/black thing.

No, it’s really a white/black thing.

Judis and Teixeira are brilliant analysts of politics, but I never believed in their emerging Democratic majority thesis. The idea of the “coalition of the ascendant” is based chiefly on the premise that Latino voters, the most rapidly growing share of the U.S. electorate, will continue to be Democratic partisans as their share of the population increases over time. This assumes that Latinos, in their voting behavior, will be more like black voters, the most loyal Democratic constituency, than like European-American “white ethnics” such as Irish-Americans and Italian-Americans, who deserted New Deal liberalism for Reagan conservatism as they assimilated into mainstream society and moved up in income and out to the suburbs. (A British saying had it: “Give an Irishman a horse and he’ll vote Tory”).

My guess is that Mexican-Americans, a major Latino group, will vote more like Irish- and Italian-Americans than African-Americans. Moreover, as in the case of European-American ethnics, the ethnicity of Mexican-Americans, outside of heavily immigrant enclaves, may become attenuated pretty quickly.

By the 1970s, a majority of American with non-English European ancestors had multiple ethnic ancestries, and most of them no longer spoke the language of this or that Old Country. They were mainstream white Americans with a mix of, say, Polish, Irish, German and Italian grandparents. They might rediscover their Irish ethnicity on St. Patrick’s Day and forget it again until next year.

Recently native-born Americans surpassed the foreign-born in the Latino community. The rates of English adoption and out-marriage—mostly to non-Hispanic whites—among Latinos are similar to those of earlier generations of European immigrants.

One result of Latino assimilation may be the collapse of the very idea of a “nonwhite majority” except as a meaningless statistical category. Already a majority of Latinos identify themselves as “white” when given the option on census forms. As I argued in a 1996 New York Times Magazine essay, “The Beige and the Black,” because of the depth of anti-black racism in the U.S., America’s informal racial caste consciousness has always been binary—not whites vs. nonwhites, but blacks vs. non-blacks. The “white” category has been an elastic one that has expanded to incorporate successive non-black immigrant groups—first European “ethnics” and in the future, perhaps, Latinos and Asian-Americans.

[adaher]

That’s kinda an argument I’ve been making for awhile. There’s no way to predict this stuff with certainty.

But while that may be true in the future, I don’t know that you can call California’s Latino population white. They are a minority group that’s attained plurality status and they rightfully want to know when they get to have Senators and governors in a state where they make up the largest group. A couple of generations from now they might be indistinguishable culturally from whites, but right now they are a visible and distinct population. And I’m sure the Asian population is probably wondering why they don’t get a shot. More Asians than African-Americans in California now:

California | Population

Twice as many actually.

[BrainGlutton]

@adaher

And it’s going to center around racial grievance because the DNC can’t stay out of it and just let voters decide.

What makes you think that?

[adaher]

Because the DNC is backing Kamala Harris.

Ruben Navarette explains why this is a problem.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/18/for-boxer-s-california-senate-seat-the-fight-is-brown-vs-black.html

Still, Democrats have their own pecking order. And demographics—which, during the civil rights movement, formed the foundation of liberal arguments to desegregate towns in the South and Midwest (i.e., why it matters in Ferguson, Missouri, that a mostly white police force serves a largely African American population)—aren’t so important. When African Americans don’t have the numbers, the narrative shifts to tradition, historical prominence, and allegiance to the Democratic Party. On that scorecard, African Americans come out on top.

Oddly enough, given that African Americans are taken for granted by Democrats and written off by Republicans, they arguably have very little political power.

So, California Democrats take a largely powerless group with a dwindling population and, by putting them ahead of other racial and ethnic minorities, give them power. And once you have power, one of the perks is using it to keep others down.

That’s what Willie Brown is trying to do with California Latinos and, in particular, Antonio Villaraigosa. Brown, a former State Assembly speaker and ex-mayor of San Francisco, has made it known that he thinks that Villaraigosa, who is himself a former State Assembly speaker and ex-mayor of Los Angeles, should take a knee and not run for the Senate seat.

[Velocity]

It’s not good for people to vote based off of sheer self interest. The whole JFK thing about asking what you can do for your country instead of vice versa.

[BrainGlutton]

@Velocity

It’s not good for people to vote based off of sheer self interest.

Nevertheless, that will always play some role.

[adaher]

especially when politicians encourage it directly, and one side even takes to browbeating people for voting against their economic interests.

[foolsguinea]

@Fuzzy_wuzzy

edit: that’s the problem with Keynesianism; there never is a good time to balance the budget.

Yeah, I’m a pretty serious Keynesian, and I think it can work in theory; but getting politicians to run surpluses in growth years is remarkably hard.

@XT

By definition it would be somewhere in the center. You know, that sweet spot between the two extremist nutball factions in both parties, possibly a bit to the left of center, possibly a bit to the right. The place both parties run to after they go through the farse of their primaries where they elect someone who can get through the nutters but will, in the hopes of the actual parties, be electable by the folks who actually elect people in this country. The nice thing about being an independent centrist is you can look at the good that both sides have to offer while rejecting the crazy crap and form an opinion on policy one issue at a time.

XT is a VSP? Also, since (apparently?) we’re mocking people for misspellings, you misspelled “farce.”

@adaher

Not that far right, but here are some realities of the current political situation:

1. You can’t raise taxes on anyone making under $400,000/yr
2. You can’t create any new entitlements without a huge backlash.
3. The public prioritizes jobs over environmental regulation. Keystone is splintering private unions from the Democratic Party.
4. While massive cuts are impossible, it’s very easy politically to just hold spending flat, which Republicans have done for four years now. In fact, Obama has gone out of his way to take credit for this fiscal retrenchment in public, while trying to increase spending in the future(which he won’t be able to do).

1, 2, & 4 are true in Congress–thanks to gerrymandering. Yeah, so?

On the other hand, Keystone is splintering property rights advocates from the GOP. Ooops.

[adaher]

Those were true when Democrats controlled Congress and I’ve heard not a single Democrat suggest raising middle class, or even upper middle class taxes in a very long time.

Middle class tax rates haven’t been increased since 1982. And middle class tax breaks get added constantly, which is probably one of the main reasons fewer people are paying income tax. It’s returning to its original purpose, a tax on the wealthy. Problem is, you can’t fund a progressive state with taxes only on the wealthy. So we’re all small government activists now.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

Those were true when Democrats controlled Congress and I’ve heard not a single Democrat suggest raising middle class, or even upper middle class taxes in a very long time.

Middle class tax rates haven’t been increased since 1982. And middle class tax breaks get added constantly, which is probably one of the main reasons fewer people are paying income tax. It’s returning to its original purpose, a tax on the wealthy. Problem is, you can’t fund a progressive state with taxes only on the wealthy. So we’re all small government activists now.

This all depends on where you divide the middle and upper classes. Obama ran and won campaigning for tax increases on 250K and above. He probably would have won campaigning for tax increases on 150K and above (and maybe even lower). He compromised at 400K, but that was due to who controlled Congress at the time – if he had done taxes in 2009, the cutoff would have been 250K.

So 400K is not necessarily the cutoff.

[adaher]

It’s not the cutoff for winning an election. Heck, I think Obama probably would have gotten away with campaigning at the 100K level.

But you can’t get anything under 400K through Congress, because Democrats dominate a lot of very wealthy states and they’d like to keep doing so.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

It’s not the cutoff for winning an election. Heck, I think Obama probably would have gotten away with campaigning at the 100K level.

But you can’t get anything under 400K through Congress, because Democrats dominate a lot of very wealthy states and they’d like to keep doing so.

I don’t think this is the case necessarily. In 2009, with the support of the President, a 250K and up tax increase probably would have passed in Congress.

[adaher]

Maybe with such huge majorities and NE Democrats agreeing not to filibuster but vote against the final bill. But given how much power those Democrats have in the party I think they’d be sure to include provisions shielding their well off constituents.

We probably won’t find out, because Democrats aren’t likely to have such huge majorities anytime soon. They seem to have killed off the prospect of electing Blue Dogs for the foreseeable future.