FROM 2012 INTO 2013 POLITICS THREAD

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

I think you're confusing things mathematically.

The relevant "wealth/income gap" is a relative one, not one of absolute dollars. In other words, it's the *percentage* of wealth controlled by, say, the top one percent. Not the absolute difference in the average salary/net worth of someone in that top 1% versus the median salary/net worth.

It's the former disparity (i.e. the percentage of total wealth controlled by the top 1% or even smaller percentage of the population) that is the concern, because it's been increasing. Obviously the difference in absolute dollars has been even greater, but that's always going to be the case.

Mathematically speaking, the only way that every level of society (in terms of income/wealth) can improve its standing, yet the "gap" in terms of the % controlled by the very top strata also increases, is if there's a huge, huge growth rate. This is a guess, but I think you'd need double-digit growth rates, which I don't think the U.S. has seen in decades, and likely won't again no matter who is President.

If truly all boats were rising at the same rate, i.e. every American saw their income/wealth increase by 5%, then then "gap" would remain the same between the middle/lower and the top in percentage terms. Though obviously in absolute dollar terms, a 5% gain for someone making $1 million a year will be more than for someone making $50,000.

I think you mean to say that nobody should object if, truly, everyone's income grew by say 5%, even though the rich would indeed get richer. And I agree, that would be great for everyone, and anyone who would oppose that is churlish.

However 1) That wouldn't actually increase the "gap" between the wealthy and the rest of America and 2) policies that primarily benefit the top end of the income/wealth ladder, especially in terms of the top tax rate and capital gains taxes, have generally not achieved that goal in practice. That to me is the rational critique of Romney's economic plan.

Ultimately his stated approach is just "supply-side economics" by another name. And that has, in practice, never worked. It has tended to help the top 1% on not just an absolute but a relative basis, thus increasing the wealth/income "gap," but the middle/lower classes have not kept up even on a relative basis.

But "supply-side," i.e. that cutting tax rates will spur so much economic growth that the government will actually end up taking in the same or even more in total tax revenues because the "pie" is so much larger, is absolutely the only way Romney can even pretend that his "tax plan" does all that he promises it will. He must be assuming truly awesome growth rates, at a level that I would bet hasn't been seen since during/after World War II. Of course he's never let anyone see what growth rates his "model" is assuming, but they have to be huge.

And yes, I'm only writing such a long, Ragu-esque post because I'm an LSU fan and I'm too hyped up about tonight's game. Geaux Tigers!

 

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Vermont: Forever Blue.

 

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

With three days to go, the only thing that gives me pause about Obama's chances is Rove's confidence in the Romney numbers. I can dismiss the others easily enough, but I don't take lightly the idea that he might have found some real discrepancy in the polling methods and is holding his cards tight.

 

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Well, don't forget he was absolutely confident he had 'The Math' in the 2006 midterms as well...

 

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

John Harwood of NBC and the Times tweeted about a half-hour ago that a prof at Texas who used to do polling for GW Bush said there were two possible ways the polls could be off. 1. Democrats are responding to polls and Republicans aren't (plausible) or that pollsters have yet to figure out what percentage of cell phone only folks to call, who skew Democratic (somewhat less plausible). He also said he didn't think they could ALL be wrong, but we'll see.

 

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

I refuse to believe anything until the ungayed polls come out.

 

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Now that I didn't know. So maybe he's just a Fox News cheerleader/bullshitter now. I just remember watching/read all the stuff on election night '04, and as the initial leaked polls came out showing Kerry, Rove and the GOP were so confident in what they had.

 

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

I think that's what the Texas guy was referring to. The exit polls in 2004 were wrong because Republicans were more likely to tell questioners to fuck off on their way out of the polls (hard to blame 'em). He's saying this MIGHT be happening now with pre-election polls. Of course, there wasn't nearly as much early voting in 2004 as there is today.

 

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shy_Tory_Factor#_

 

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

FEMA:

Private Business:

 

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

LTL: Rove also predicted Bush would get 330 electoral votes in 2000.

 

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

All hail beneficent captains of industry! And the sweet art of cherry-picking!