"... which party leaders had hoped would help stave off losses in the House and Senate in midterm elections. In part, that is because the rescue plan has become fodder for Republicans to attack Democrats over rapidly rising prices, accusing them of overstimulating the economy with too much cash.... It was initially seen as Mr. Biden’s signature economic policy achievement.... Some Democrats worry that voters have been swayed by the persistent Republican argument that the aid was the driving factor behind rapidly rising prices of food, rent and other daily staples...."
A lot of this article — by Jim Tankersley — is focused on Senator Warnock. It begins:
In the midst of a critical runoff campaign that would determine control of the Senate, the Rev. Raphael Warnock promised Georgia voters that, if elected, he would help President-elect Biden send checks to people digging out of the pandemic recession.
Mr. Warnock won. Democrats delivered payments of up to $1,400 per person.
But this year, as Mr. Warnock is locked in a tight re-election campaign, he barely talks about those checks....
When asked by a reporter why he was not campaigning on an issue that had been so central to his election and whether he thought the payments had contributed to inflation, Mr. Warnock deflected....I guess if Warnock loses — and if Democrats in general lose — the criticism will be that they failed to emphasize all the money — all our money — they spent to benefit us. But aren't they making the right decision? They don't want to call attention to something they did that at least partially caused the inflation that's troubling us all so much — after we spent all the money they gave us. They can't really say, but didn't you like all that money we gave you?
But this NYT article seems to say that the Democrats spent tax money in order to acquire votes in the 2022 elections, so it's confounding that the scheme did not work or that they've decided in advance that it won't work and they're not even attempting to follow the scheme to the end.
पोस्ट्स
६५ टिप्पण्या:
This act is President Biden's "signature economic policy achievement" and may God have mercy on his soul for it.
"It was initially seen as Mr. Biden’s signature economic policy achievement.... "
Helicoptering money was their "signature policy achievement". All they know how to do is spend money.
People like free money - but free money comes with a price tag.
Millions of economic illiterates fail to make that baseline connection as giggle and laugh at the Propaganda fed to them on Saturday Night Democrat and Colbert+Behar ABC+NBC(D-FBI).
BS economic gimmick fails to work - and people notice.
Shame.
"Republicans pounce as Democrats face the inevitable consequences of having complete power and getting everything they wanted!"
"Some Democrats worry that voters have been swayed by the persistent Republican argument that the aid was the driving factor behind rapidly rising prices of food, rent and other daily staples...." I didn't have to wait for the evil republicans to convince me. I took econ in college and read Milton Friedman ‘inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon’. Politicians like to argue against this but they always looking like Xerxes lashing the sea.
Looking at Real Clear Politics’ polling averages, Biden’s support bottomed out shortly before the inflation reduction act was passed. When it passed, he got about a 10 point bump. The situation seems to be that there were 2 kinds of people who didn’t like Biden—those who hated what he was doing (center and right) and those who hated that he wasn’t doing more of it (the hard left). By getting that act passed, he gave something to the hard left to get them on his side again, but it did nothing to help attract the persuadables in the center.
That’s why they’re not talking about it—it’s already given all it has to give. There’s nothing to be gained by continuing to promote it.
"... all the money — all our money — they spent to benefit us."
Well, it wasn't all, or even mostly, our money. And that's the problem. If government spending is backed by taxation, it distorts the economy, by driving production to nonproductive uses. But it doesn't fuel inflation, because it doesn't increase the amount of money. But the government is now just printing the stuff. Actually, just flipping a few more bits to ones on a computer somewhere.
A giant portion of the IRA money is for federal tax credits for wind and solar and much it is unspent. And when it is spent, electric rates will go UP. In MN, if net zero carbon actually is implemented, electricity prices will triple. Then we will have real inflation.
The GOP, of course, never explains this.
"...so it's confounding that the scheme did not work..."
It's not confounding. Nothing the Democrats do ever works. Remember all the money we were going to save with Obamacare? That's why they simply call everyone that goes against them Nazi's, racists, and lie about Medicare and Social Security being taken away. They have no solutions.
They became 'fodder' because they were like fertilizer for inflation. Like spreading Miracle-Gro on a bad economic disease, making it get worse even more quickly.
Mr. Biden’s signature economic policy achievement was responsible for MASSIVE Inflation.
Hardly something to run on.
Vote For Us Democrats! We are RUINING the Nation! But, we Can't Do It; without YOUR Help!!
In this election cycle the voters are concerned with:
1. Price of food
2. Price of fuel
3. Rising crime
4. Open borders
That’s it, that’s all of it. Everything else is way down the list. So naturally the D’s don’t want to talk about strangling the energy industry, defunding the police, subsidies for those wealthy enough to buy a Tesla, etc.
As Carville said, “It’s the economy, stupid.” A huge portion of Americans, 50% or more by some sources, have less than $1000 in liquid savings. With gas prices rising, again, and how that will affect the price of goods, no wonder families are concerned with how they feed their families.
[note: i'm agreeing with tim maguire, when he said]...
By getting that act passed, he gave something to the hard left to get them on his side again, but it did nothing to help attract the persuadables in the center.
Here's a Serious Question: was there a single person in the world, that approved of these Billions in spending; that wouldn't have voted for Biden, anyway? Sure; they disapproved of him, but what other choice did they have?
Supporting your base, to alienate the persuadable center is a loser game.
What Jupiter said.
It's not our money that "Biden" is spending. It's all borrowed, to be repaid in some form by our kids and grandkids.
It's arithmetically impossible for them to pay it back they way any of us repay debts- a bit at a time, with some of the payment going to interest, the rest principal, until the balance is zero. The official debt currently is $93K per person. Including off the books debt such as unfunded entitlements, it is in excess of $250K. That exceeds the net worth of the vast majority of Americans, and technically our liabilities exceed our assets- we're broke.
But, no matter. We have the world's reserve currency, and the only reason we aren't at each other's throats is that the other advanced economies are in even worse shape than ours. That means that the dollar is relatively strong, so we can still eat and buy some stuff.
Once the clearing is completed, we'll be just another broke nation, maybe not as bad as Venezuela or Pakistan, but maybe worse. Our standard of living will deteriorate massively, and there will be no way to fix it other than hard work and sacrifice, which went out of style in Western civilization about the time of the Kennedy administration.
It was nice while it lasted.
"But this NYT article seems to say that the Democrats spent tax money in order to acquire votes in the 2022 elections...."
Well yeah! That's the Democrat plan for governance: spend taxpayers' money to acquire votes and graft. That's why they oppose spending for law enforcement, particularly prisons. Public safety is too indirect a benefit. Public welfare, that's the thing. Forget about safe streets, secure borders, etc. Just send me the check (after taking your cut).
Democrats are generally so evil they pretend that defunding the police and emptying the prisons has someting to do with moral high ground rather than freeing funds to buy votes with tax dollars. Upvoting 87,000 new IRS agents while downvoting 18,000 new border patrolmen would be a dead giveaway if their base wasn't so stupid.
This time, democrats are hiding all the insider Solyndra's.
$1400 dollars doesn’t go very far when staple foods have gone up by more than 10% and you’ve lost your job due to the inevitable recession.
It's funny to me this article is written as....Democrats did a thing, and Republicans are arguing the thing has had some results. No word on whether the thing Democrats did actually had those results. I mean, it seems completely likely voters are noticing the results, and Democrats are noticing the results, and they recognize *their* spin (the Dem spin) isn't going to work to get them voters.
"Some Democrats worry that voters have been swayed by the persistent Republican argument that the aid was the driving factor behind rapidly rising prices of food, rent and other daily staples...."
Oh, being swayed by the truth is so awful, isn't it?
It's a good thing spending a couple trillion bucks isn't inflationary or anything - that would be bad.
What is referred to colloquially as inflation - properly used, a fairly technical term in economics - is actually a rise in the cost of living.
The cost of living is the last topic of discussion Leftists and their media allies want to have, especially at election time.
The number one cause of the explosion in the cost of living was the spike in gas prices, engineered by our Leftist friends in Washington in January, 2021. Saving the planet, don't you know. We know the real reason.
In a just world, they'd be facing the gibbet. After a fair trial, of course.
In my small town we had to form a committee to figure out how to best spend the $3m or so cash that we were showered with from the American Rescue Plan. The fact that we had no clear need told me all I needed to know about the ARP. No “rescue” needed here.
Tankersley's long whine seems to originate from the unfortunate circumstance that the adverse consequences of using obviously bad fiscal policy to buy votes became evident too soon. They were supposed to buy the votes, and then experience the resulting inflation AFTER the election. It's like Biden jawboning OPEC and releasing the strategic petroleum reserve in the runup to the election. Get some temporary relief before the dumbos who vote for us can realize that, post-election, gas prices will be worse than ever.
Many Democrats truly believe that wealth comes from a government printing press creating lots of 100 dollar bills. They are only right in the sense that government spending does increase wealth for those well connected to the party in power. For the rest of us, it looks an awful lot like looting the treasury.
It was a year and a half ago and Trump and the Republicans were promising the same giveaway on top of the one that passed during Trump's term.
Raising the point that "we gave you $1,400" instantly raises the question of "why not more now" and even the Democrats (and maybe some of their voters) can see the inflationary problems that more giveaways will cause. How do you campaign on that?
The emphasis on the 2021 bill while barely mentioning the follow-up Inflation Reduction Act giveaway is a bit weird.
Odd article all around.
"Well, it wasn't all, or even mostly, our money."
The money that Congress spent on the the IRA, and that they've been spending, comes from taxes (our money), and borrowing (our children's money).
The Fed has also been creating money through quantitative easing. That's separate from what the President and Congress did with the IRA. But it's all contributing to inflation, which is acting as an indirect tax (on our money).
Tankersley's long whine seems to originate from the unfortunate circumstance that the adverse consequences of using obviously bad fiscal policy to buy votes became evident too soon. They were supposed to buy the votes, and then experience the resulting inflation AFTER the election. It's like Biden jawboning OPEC and releasing the strategic petroleum reserve in the runup to the election. Get some temporary relief before the dumbos who vote for us can realize that, post-election, gas prices will be worse than ever.
Many Democrats truly believe that wealth comes from a government printing press creating lots of 100 dollar bills. They are only right in the sense that government spending does increase wealth for those well connected to the party in power. For the rest of us, it looks an awful lot like looting the treasury.
Are Democrats talking about the student loan bailout? What about the Green New Deal?
Are they even talking about abortion?
Democrat elites know how to drain us, and waste our money. They are ace at it. Then lecture us how grateful we should be.
MayBee said...Democrats did a thing, and Republicans are arguing the thing has had some results. No word on whether the thing Democrats did actually had those results.
That’s the sad state of modern journalism. It’s all horse race, which party is helped, which party is hurt. Never any analysis on whether the American people are helped or hurt. Never a word about whether it’s actually a good policy; or rather, it’s a good policy if moves the polls towards the Democrats.
"But this NYT article seems to say that the Democrats spent tax money in order to acquire votes in the 2022 elections, so it's confounding that the scheme did not work"
That's always the problem with client politics like that, you have to keep delivering the "bread".
No more panem, time for panic.
Some claim that Mao's signature economic achievement was The Great Leap Forward; others claim that it was The Great Cultural Proletarian Revolution. Me, I think Mao's signature achievement was staying in power after both those debacles. That's quite an achievement when you stop to think about it. There's quite a good chance that Warnock will will reelection.
Supporting your base, to alienate the persuadable center is a loser game.
I doubt strategy had much to do with what happened. Congress wanted what it wanted and Biden's team let them have it, convincing themselves that all the spending would help the economy. There may have been a notional split between Pelosi/Schumer and AOC over the Squad's most radical talk, but there was amazing unity in the party. Even reps who only got in because of anti-Trump feeling in traditionally Republican districts went along with the party leaders. Congress is like that. True mavericks and dissenters are rare now. Didn't some candidates who said they'd oppose reelecting Pelosi Speaker, fall into line and vote for her after they were elected?
@Althouse, pardon me for reminding you, but not long ago you put up a post that argued that the reason to vote for a brain-damaged John Fetterman was that he'd vote his party line. Equally, it can be argued that, given the predictable results of Democrat policies, the reason to vote for Herschel Walker, and Mehmet Oz, and J.D. Vance, Adam Laxalt, Blake Masters, Ron Johnson, Don Bolduc, Ted Budd, Marco Rubio, Tiffany Smiley, and Joe O'Dea is that they would be reliable votes against the terrible Democrat energy and economic policies that have made life so miserable for the people at the middle and bottom of the economic ladder.
So it cuts both ways.
"the rescue plan has become fodder for Republicans to attack Democrats"
Republicans pounce.
"Some Democrats worry that voters have been swayed by the persistent Republican argument"
IOW, voters recognize the obvious reality. But of course, the negative reality has to be presented as a source of Dem worry.
"Democrats Spent $2 Trillion to Save the Economy."
What part of the $2T was designed to "save" anything? What needed saving?
"Rev. Raphael Warnock promised Georgia voters that, if elected, he would help President-elect Biden send checks to people digging out of the pandemic recession."
Well, yeah, he's a Dem, he wants to bribe people with other people's money. What's this BS about digging out from the pandemic, when Congress and trump already spent trillions on Covid "emergency" funding?
Mr. Warnock won. Democrats delivered payments of up to $1,400 per person.
"all our money"
Well, our our borrowed money. For our grandchildren to pay back, maybe.
"But this NYT article seems to say that the Democrats spent tax money in order to acquire votes in the 2022 elections"
Hey, NYT, say it ain't so! Anyway, vote buying is Dem MO. The very definition of "boring" politics.
I cashed those checks from the government. It was helpful to have a bit of added income, although we could have gotten by without it. I am more concerned now, though, with the price of eggs and bread.
Have Democrats always cast themselves in the role of Savior? They save the economy, or save democracy, or save the planet, or at least they try to. But I'm skeptical these things are in grave peril.
And yet not one dime has gone to any other than bureaucrats
Redistributive change; Diversity, Inequity, and Exclusion (DIE); transgender conversion therapy; Mengele mandates; progressive prices; progressive energy; summary judgments, labels, and elective abortions; progressive coups without borders; foreign emoluments and influence peddling. I wonder if we will fund the regime or back the resistance in Iran.
And yet not one dime has gone to any other than bureaucrats
Reduce/abort, Reuse/cannibalize, Recycle/redistribute with good perceptions brayed often and pointedly, but not now. Curious.
Lurker21 said...
I doubt strategy had much to do with what happened. Congress wanted what it wanted
Which, is to say; Congress followed THEIR strategy. Congress IS the democrat party..
Which, is to say; the democrat party followed the democrat party strategy.
And the democrat party strategy was to Pander To their BASE, and alienate the middle
Which, is to say; the democrat party followed a STUPID strategy
the rescue plan has become fodder for Republicans to attack Democrats
Another way of saying if only politics were more like solitaire and less like chess, we’d win every time.
It's not our money that "Biden" is spending. It's all borrowed, to be repaid in some form by our kids and grandkids.
The national debt, which has gone up 200% since 2008, will never be repaid. It will be repudiated or inflated away. Remember the "balanced budgets" under Clinton and the GOP Congress? That was fake and was faked by raiding Social Security. At the time that the Boomer generation was at peak earning, SS had surplus which was taken to "balance the budget."
They are all crooks.
Bidencares in the model of Obamacares with progressive prices/availability. Perhaps if the problem was cost, but the evidence points to prices in single/central/monopolistic solutions.
Here's a Serious Question
WHY is the Iowa Democrat Party spending time and trouble filling my mailboxes (both real and virtual) with campaign litterature? Do they think that i will Suddenly change my ways, and vote democrat? Because, guess what? i'm NOT.
If they are SO fiscally STUPID, that they spend Their money mailing gilbar stuff,
WHY would ANYONE think they are capable of ANYTHING?
Michael K said...
The national debt, which has gone up 200% since 2008, will never be repaid. It will be repudiated or inflated away. Remember the "balanced budgets" under Clinton and the GOP Congress? That was fake and was faked by raiding Social Security. At the time that the Boomer generation was at peak earning, SS had surplus which was taken to "balance the budget."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ha. That reminds me of when Climate Change Grifter-in-Chief Albert Gore was earnestly assuring the public that their Social Security contributions were safe in a "lockbox", a preposterous claim which went largely unchallenged by his media allies.
The number one cause of the explosion in the cost of living was the spike in gas prices, engineered by our Leftist friends in Washington in January, 2021.
And this is always my answer when any of several unnamed but committed persons of the left say that Trump "inherited" an already recovering Obama economy and could claim no credit for the boom that started - coincidentally - in January 2021 (look at the inflection in the curve) and was still booming away when COVID came calling. Also the answer I give when those same people say that Biden was fighting with one foot in a COVID bucket or whatever.
Presidents are, thankfully, not omnipotent in our system. But they do have certain powers and can accomplish certain things that have outsize effects, such as supporting or attempting to kill domestic energy production.
I also remember how the stock market responded on the day that it became clear that Trump had won in 2016 (that is, the day after election day, in the good old days when you could know that then). No matter what our doughty journalists would have us believe, the hard-nosed capitalists of Wall Street were happy about Trump over Clinton. And that has an effect on ordinary people's retirement funds.
Shorter NYT: Once again Pelosi’s has convinced her caucus to pass legislation that will end many of their careers.
WHY is the Iowa Democrat Party spending time and trouble filling my mailboxes (both real and virtual) with campaign litterature? Do they think that i will Suddenly change my ways, and vote democrat? Because, guess what? i'm NOT.
If they are SO fiscally STUPID, that they spend Their money mailing gilbar stuff,
WHY would ANYONE think they are capable of ANYTHING?
Grift. Someone gets paid to print, fill, and mail out that literature. That someone likely has ties to the party.
How DARE those Republicans point out the downsides of blowing 1.9 trillion dollars. Why, the voters might notice and be persuaded to think it's bad thing.
D's strike me as very idealistic and theory-centric people.
Of course, idealists are very often stupid, and dangerous to themselves and others, as we can see from the fruits of their exertions in this country and elsewhere.
As Churchill put it (paraphrased). the rule of theorists is among the worst kind.
David Begley @ 10:48: "A giant portion of the IRA money is for federal tax credits for wind and solar and much it is unspent. And when it is spent, electric rates will go UP. In MN, if net zero carbon actually is implemented, electricity prices will triple. Then we will have real inflation.
The GOP, of course, never explains this."
I'm no economist but I have high enough mileage to have seen stagflation up close and personal, and your comment seems spot-on.
I am treble infuirated: by the unfolding disaster, by the Democrats' shameless spin of it, and by the GOP's abject failure to educate the public.
I seem to be simpler about economics than most of the people commenting here. They seem to know there's a connection between that $1400 I got from the government last year and gas prices this year. The commenters think that people know about that connection and so that's why the Dems are losing votes. But to me there's NO connection between that $1400 and gas prices; and I think that's how most people are. Last year the government gave me money. That was a year ago. This year gas and grocery prices are going up. Gas and grocery prices are wrecking me. In my reactions to prices, I don't even really pay attention to the fact that Greenies want me to suffer from high gas prices though my mind knows that this exact scenario is their exact policy. In my gut I just want someone to bring those prices down. "Who can get those prices down?" "Get those prices down." "Oh my god in heaven, Biden just insulted the Saudis again. How's that going to get prices down?" Of course, I personally wasn't going to vote for the Dems anyway but I think my mental process over prices is mainstream in both parties.
There's strategy and there's strategy. That is to say, there's the strategy of taking whatever you want now and there's the strategy involved in setting yourself up to be reelected and pursuing longer range goals. I'd say the second was real strategic thinking and the first was the absence of real strategizing. But I suppose not having much of a strategy can be seen as having a bad strategy if you want to look at it that way.
argued that the reason to vote for a brain-damaged John Fetterman was that he'd vote his party line.
I'm puzzled why someone thought this interesting to bring up. Of course, a reason for a Democrat to vote for Fetterman is because he is a Democrat that will loyally vote that way. Sure, it is also true enough a reason for a Republican to vote for a Republican. Except, and as an example, Althouse also noted in 2012 she didn't trust Mitt Romney. Many here criticized her and said they'd vote Mitt Romney, because he was the Republican and he'd vote against Obama. Well, how did that go for Republicans? Was Romney a reliable vote against Obama or Obamacare? Is he a reliable Republican Senator? If he was the only Republican on the ballot, would you as you did for John McCain, hold your nose and vote for him anyway?
The argument today is after being a reliable Democrat and getting for the people what you promised them; why aren't Democrats talking about their triumphs and promising more of the same? Is it really because Republicans criticized them? Probably not, unless that criticism is founded on the reality of the harm those Democrat policies created, which honest journalist would note. But journalists are not honest, as our host brings to our attention, or at least tries until banal people don't get the message. Then they bring up odd arguments like party loyalist vote for party members, because that is how party politics work. Duh.
What is referred to colloquially as inflation - properly used, a fairly technical term in economics - is actually a rise in the cost of living.
Inflation is an expansion of the money supply by creating new money from thin air. It is not backed by the production of goods and services. So, though oil prices may well have sparked the price increases we refer to as “inflation”, had the money supply remained constant [i.e., funded by taxes from production] other prices would have dropped as consumers wouldn’t have had the wherewithal to maintain their previous purchase level.
Two trillion, huh?
That's a lot of graft. And all I got was a smaller 401k.
I got an Idea. Next time we elect someone to the presidency, let's elect somebody who actually knows something about economics. I can tell you right now it won't be a democrat.
Blogger Rusty said...
Two trillion, huh?
That's a lot of graft. And all I got was a smaller 401k.
I got an Idea. Next time we elect someone to the presidency, let's elect somebody who actually knows something about economics. I can tell you right now it won't be a democrat.
Sadly, we had one who had made $billions from that knowledge and it cost a lot of Zuckerbucks to generate enough fraud to defeat him but they pulled it off. Now what ?
So much of the Democrats base is employed by the government or dependent on the government that it distorts their thinking. So does the fact that to get the rest of their voters they just have to yell, "Trump! Trump! Trump! Abortion! Abortion! Abortion!"
So much of the Democrats base is employed by the government or dependent on the government that it distorts their thinking. So does the fact that to get the rest of their voters they just have to yell, "Trump! Trump! Trump! Abortion! Abortion! Abortion!"
""Democratic candidates in competitive Senate races this fall have spent little time... touting... their party’s $1.9 trillion economic rescue package...""
Only stupid people actually believe that squandering $1.5T is either going to help the economy or bring inflation down. I don’t think that Chuck Schemer is that that stupid. Nancy Palsi and FJB, on the other hand probably are. She famously, maybe a decade ago, famously claimed a 4x or 5x Keynesian multiplier. Reality is that the Keynesian multiplier is inevitably less than one. The government inevitably misspends the money it gets its hands on. Always. The private sector will always spend the money better. And we know that much of the money spent in that $1.9T monstrosity was nowhere spent economically. Much of it was squandered on nonsense like Renewable Energy, EVs, etc. Sure, maybe you can justify wasting it when we are flush. But not when the economy is quickly crashing and sliding quickly into recession. It’s taking money that should be spent on heat and food, and spending it on pie in the sky schemes.
Making things worse - the money has to come from somewhere. In the past, the government could maybe raise some of it from selling our sovereign debt to countries around the world. That worked, because we had the world’s reserve currency. But then the FJB Administration forced people around the world to buy oil and gas using other currencies. In any case, the amount that they can’t raise elsewhere essentially is financed by the Federal Reserve buying our sovereign debt, and financing it by creating money (used to print most of it, but now it’s just flipping electrons). Unfortunately, we aren’t talking increasing the money supply by just the amount borrowed, but through a Monetary Multiplier (up to 1/Reserve-Requirement)
Shorter NYT: Once again Pelosi’s has convinced her caucus to pass legislation that will end many of their careers.
There’s a strategic logic to it: Because the expansion of government is a ratchet that moves in only one direction, it makes sense to pocket legislative victories at the price of losing Congress (especially when history dictates you’re likely to lose Congress anyway). Democrats did so with Obamacare; they subsequently lost control of Congress but were back in power soon enough, and (most important to them) socialized healthcare remains, likely forever. Political capital must be used; it can’t be hoarded.
It would be a completely different calculation if the ratchet ran in the other direction and Republicans were structurally capable of shrinking the size of government.
$1.9T doesn't buy as many votes as it used to, what with inflation and all.
Lurker21, I kinda see where you are going with your 'strategy' comment but I think tim maguire and gilbar are noticing a longer term pattern.
It's been a long time coming but I think Reagan pulling the 'Reagan Democrats' (what we would today call the white working class or white ethnics) out of the old FDR Democrat coalition was the first jolt in a realignment that has been going on for forty years, and might be reaching a conclusion. That set the stage for the House flipping GOP in 1994 and helped usher in the first unified Republican government under W in 2000 since a brief period under Eisenhower (1953-1955). Mom and Dad speaking approvingly of a Republican president resonates down through the kids. On the flip side, the Democrats began convincing themselves that Hispanics were going to keep on voting just like blacks in the 1990s, and then Judas and Teixeira convinced them that white working class voters no longer mattered (though Teixeira is now saying he meant that the emerging majority was 'both and', not replacement). So the whole game in the 1990s and early 2000s for both parties became 'get your base out' because nobody knew exactly what was motivating these new people flirting with joining the coalition. I think we can now say pretty conclusively that the working class, both white and non-white, have substantially moved towards the Republican party though the deal isn't sealed quite yet. The Democrats don't have much of a play in 2022 except get as many of their base voters out as possible given the way both the coalitions are breaking and the usual pattern of first-term mid-term outcome.
So you're right in saying there isn't much strategy involved. In the near-term it's just dance with who brung ya. Over the longer haul it looks like the Republicans may benefit from largely being in the right place at the right time, as neither severe cultural conservatism/nationalism nor 'Democrat-lite' pandering alone would have worked.
The debt can be brought down by selling the ~200 million acres of Federal land to private individuals and organizations. Auction it off to the highest bidder. Forest land can be worth as much as $100,000/acre. Say the average value is only $50,000/acre, that's about $10T to pay off the debt and $10T increase in the tax base. If Greenpeace wants to buy land to preserve it, go for it! More land for lumber production. More private land for oil production without the government starting and stopping leases at the whim of a senile old fool.
But this NYT article seems to say that the Democrats spent tax money in order to acquire votes in the 2022 elections, so it's confounding that the scheme did not work or that they've decided in advance that it won't work and they're not even attempting to follow the scheme to the end.
This is one of many excellent posts with great points.
So yes, the NYT writer can not understand why the old game isn't working. "We bought their votes, why aren't they coming through?"
Well, because they've figured out that the vote buying hurt them more than it helped them. Because the inflation it created has cost more than the "buying" delivered.
Yes, that's right, voters actually want good government polices, not just payoffs.
it's an interesting comment on the psychology of the writer that this comes as a shock
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा