Group items tagged

I get so worked up when super-wealthy people act like they are somehow being persecuted when the Democrats asked them to "pay their fair share." I think this op-ed piece does a great job of explaining the frustration with the current socioeconomic divide. The author writes that "It is no accident that in America today the gap between the very rich and everyone else is wider than at any time since the Gilded Age." Although we can sit around and pretend that people "need to learn" from the rich. In reality, a of government policies are making it much harder to go from poor to rich, or even middle class. As the author describes the holes in the current American system, "Exhibit A is the bipartisan, $700 billion rescue of Wall Street in 2008. Exhibit B is the crony recovery. The economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty found that 93 percent of the income gains from the 2009-10 recovery went to the top 1 percent of taxpayers. The top 0.01 percent captured 37 percent of these additional earnings, gaining an average of $4.2 million per household." This article doesn't blame Romney or Obama, it just explains why people are starting to have problems with the idea of the "1%." I personally don't think the outcry is against the actual members of the 1%, but rather agains the policies that it make socioeconomic inequality greater.

I think that what Mr. Potepan said in the talk really applies here. The idea is that when money is mobile, the economy is flourishing, but once the money gets locked up in the super-rich's bank accounts it doesn't help anyone because it's not being invested. It's always interesting to see historical examples of theories like these, and the thing about Venice seems like it illustrates Mr. Potepan's point well.

I agree with Cody that the point of the article is that successful states are those that give everyone access to economic opportunity and that inclusiveness as opposed to exclusiveness makes for a more prosperous country. The "book of gold" is a powerful image for the special access and privilege the elite had in Venice that continues today in access to better education tax breaks, etc. That access is something people don't want to give up. The African-American president at Brown who didn't want to give up legacy at admissions, since she had a granddaughter shows how once you have privilege, you don't want to let it go.

There has been a lot of talk around this election that has been about how bad Obama's term has been. People are always so negative when it comes to polotics and when something does not work right away they jump to conclusions. Here is an article about something positive that Obama has been doing. It is nice to see evidence of success from Obama's term. With four more years he could do a lot of good for this country and its future.

I agree with John. I cannot remember any talk about Race to the Top or the Clean Car program in a debate or a commercial. When you consider that voters think education is an important issue, certainly not as important as the economy and jobs, but very important, it seems like Obama's campaign should have highlighted this success. Race to the Top involves policies that reflect many of the same ideas given by the Republicans and is pretty controversial with the Teacher's Union. That may be why they haven't brought it up. I wonder how the auto-workers and the automobile industry feel about the Clean Car program. It may have been that these programs were not supported by important, Democratic groups.

I read an interesting piece on environmental sustainability being actually cost effective. It talked about how Regan go people on board to confront the holes in the ozone layer by talking about the economic impacts of more people getting skin cancer with such a thin ozone layer. I think the climate change debate has the potential to go in that direction. Storms like Hurricane Sandy cost the economy tremendously, and it is pretty clear that storms of that proportion are happening due to climate change. I think the economic impact of climate change could certainly change the debate. Maybe Obama should go in that direction.

This article describes Romney's "demographic bind," which has him falling seriously behind in the non-white vote. The Latino and black electorate, the author describes, have begun the process of making strictly red states (like Georgia) into possibly competitive areas of the country in the future. The author points to the 2008 election, when McCain won a safe majority of America's white vote while Obama won 66% of the Latino vote and a whopping 95% of the black vote, as a signal for two different strategies for Romney. On the one hand, he can and is trying to woo thee Latino vote in states like Nevada and Florida (the RNC had really concrete evidence of this in its choice of speakers). Second, and a little more frightening, he can concentrate his efforts on winning an even greater majority of the white electorate. This is a significant challenge, because it would mean a serious effort at reconciling the generally more socially liberal views of white youth with the social conservatism of the Republican Party's. In the case of immigration reform, embracing a more liberal position would be a win-win for Romney: he could win a greater share of the Latino electorate, among which immigration is a serious concern, and a greater percentage of the younger, more socially liberal white vote that has traditionally voted Democrat. This would almost certainly come with consequences among older and less educated white voters, who would see immigration reform like this as a threat to legitimate control of illegal immigration in the future. Of the two, trying to expand the portion of the white vote seems like the losing option. While the example of immigration reform I mentioned could be a place for compromise, I have trouble seeing how Romney or a future Republican candidate could champion a pro-life and pro-choice stance at the same time, for instance. Rather than focusing on incredibly divisive issues, trying to appeal to the Latino electorate seems like a wiser choice. For Romn

While I think the ideology behind this article would be hard to debate productively on a forum like Diigo, a conversation about the portrayal of each candidate as a champion of "class warfare" might be a little more fruitful. Class is definitely an issue that any comment, by Romney or by Obama, could incite claims like these. The issue I have with this article is the wordplay it involves: while taking minor quotes from Obama (or just referencing what he's saying) makes him sound like this class-warfare champion, I would be interested to see this author write the same article about Romney. For every spending figure the author cites, I believe a similar one could be drummed up to paint Romney as a villain. The wildly controversial video of Romney, in which he basically divides the country into two halves, those who are dependent and those who are not, strikes me as the very definition of class warfare. If the author wants Obama held accountable for his words, the same can be done with Romney (I don't think it's a coincidence that this article was published shortly after the video leaked). I generally have a problem with using ideology to paint one candidate as hero and another as villain: I would rather take on faith that each candidate truly and honestly thinks his plan will work, and find which one I agree with. The idea that, next month, we will permanently decide the "vision of America" seems like a distraction to me.

Eli, I understand your concern with details of this article, but the point I was more concerned with is the representation of the upper class in modern America. I tried to get an article I read in Fortune, but it was not online, so this was the best I could do. I do think that the rich are often portrayed as the villains. Why should people be concerned with "spreading the wealth" and not with learning how to get more themselves. It is true that less well off individuals tend to favor the Democrat candidate. I just think that everybody needs to stop accusing the rich and learn from them.

I agree with a lot of what John and Eli said, not only because of the inaccuracy of the comments made in this article but also as a liberal "idealistic young [woman]," I didn't know before that I only like Obama because of some misguided desire to be nice to people! Otherwise, Cameron, I think that you are delegitimizing this article further by pointing out that the details are irrelevant. The details are only irrelevant because they are so broad-sweeping and false that they end up outlandish and almost humorous. In actuality, they represent the ignorance that defines this article and the lack of respect for real people in the United States who might not be as privileged as the upper class Americans you also referenced. This is something that I often see as flawed in Republican values, very few poor people have the resources to simply "learn" from the rich and completely pull themselves out of their situations which are exasperated by entire social systems inherently working against them.

This column by David Brooks about the changing nature of the American electorate and the Republican's inability to understand it seems to nail many of the issues Republicans have with minority voters. The old days of white male Protestant individualism is a mindset that is slipping away as our country is made up of more cultures who believe both in the commitment to hard work and to the idea that government programs can insight work and enhance opportunity. It's funny to hear the Republicans now talk only about immigration reform as they try to reach Latino and Asian voters. David Brooks shows that there is much more listening and understanding the Republicans still have to do.

I don't want to sound naive, but I feel like the "small government" argument is beginning to be an outdated argument. Obviously, there will always be conservatives, but I think they are going to need to start fitting the desire of the electorate. For example, in California, a state that votes very fiscally conservative on its propositions, we passed a bill that raises taxes to pay for education. I don't have any stats on this, but I feel pretty comfortable saying that if most people in America were asked the question, "would you raise taxes on wealthy people to help pay for education?" I believe people would say yes.

I think that the Republicans were able to go into the mind set of "if it ain't broke don't fix it" in the past few elections as this change started to happen. Now they clearly cannot have that mind set or they will not go far as a political party. If they can embrace this change and allow themselves to work to attract a broader demographic they will be able to make the 2016 election and interesting one. I do believe though that it is hard to let go of because it has been their "status quo" of sorts for awhile.

This article exposes how few candidates who run for office are from blue collar backgrounds even though most of the electorate are not white collar workers . Although I think so many election related articles focus too much on who the candidates are and not what specific policies and plans they have, the statistics and the implications Nicholas Carnes exposes are worth considering. With 90 million blue collar workers in this country, is it possible that not one former blue collar worker is qualified to run for office? He can only give two example of former blue collar workers who have been elected to federal offices. I agree with him that where you come from must influence your priorities and this means that important experiences are not being represented. Carnes says that it's unclear why this discrepancy is so huge. It could be campaign money, free-time, or party gatekeepers. Citizen United could only have made this discrepancy and the possibility of fixing it worse. Some possible solutions could include required public financing of elections, strict spending limits, and a very short election season. I wonder whether someone who tried to run for office and was be clearly cut out of the process because of job related time constraints and lack of funding could argue that his civil rights were denied. Has this been argued before?

I disagree, Cameron, mainly because of the staggering disconnection I see a lot of the time between Presidents and the people they hope to serve. Obama and Romney both try to play up their connection to the middle class. I see this as a performance, but the emphasis they put on it certainly makes it seem like an essential quality of an elected official. If blue collar workers ran and were elected, an authentic connection to the way policies play out for a huge part of our population might be possible. You seem to suggest in your article that no blue collar workers are as qualified as those with white collar backgrounds. The article suggests that, if even a fraction of a percent of the working-class population were qualified, if office "suited them," as you put it, they would "fill every seat in Congress and in every state legislature more than 40 times." No one is saying that only blue-collar workers should be elected, but it doesn't seem fair to attribute this discrepancy to every blue collar worker "not knowing as much about politics" as his or her white collar counterpart.

It seems like having wealthy politicians is just natural. Politicians have to be educated and ambitious, and someone who is both of those things typically isn't a blue-collar worker. The world of politics is also really based on connections, some through family and some though college (Harvard law for Obama) and it makes sense that most of those connections would go to the wealthy. Honestly, this article seems like it's raising kind of a silly point. Sure, there are blue collar workers who absolutely have the intelligence necessary to be president. But the educated tend to be wealthy, and so do the ambitious.

When Romney mentioned he would quickly do-away with PBS as President during his debate with Obama, he not only upset those who take advantage of this great resource, which directly benefits children, but also once again showed his ignorance of crucial facts. He pegged PBS as an unnecessary expense of the federal government and made it seem like getting rid of the organization would have a great "impact on the nation's debt," both of which are greatly inaccurate facts. This PBS statement discusses the oddity of Romney's comments well and explains clearly that there is no need for PBS to become a "political target."

I saw a really interesting survey - in this article. http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/romneys-attack-on-big-bird-sows-confusion-abroad-and-feeds-it-at-home/?smid=tw-share. It says, " The results of that survey, which asked respondents to estimate what share of the federal budget was spent on certain programs, found that just 27 percent of Americans knew that the money for PBS and NPR was less than 1 percent of government spending. Remarkably, 40 percent guessed that the share was between 1 and 5 percent and 30 percent said it was in excess of 5 percent - including 7 percent who said that more than half of the federal budget was spent on television and radio broadcasts." I just wanted to note this. It's interesting how programs like PBS are being used by the Republicans as an example of government excesses while they're actually a tiny percentage of the federal government, compared to, say, Social Security and Medicare/Medicare (60% taken together).

If we focus on something specific like Sesame Street, it is clear that cutting funding to these kind of programs would disproportionately affect poor people something I find that a lot of Mitt Romney's platforms do; I loved Obamas statement that Romney policies were "thinly veiled social Darwinism." Anyways, over the summer, I read Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell. There was an entire chapter on the success of Sesame Street to actually get kid's to pay attention and retain the educational information that they are being presented with. Low income families don't have the same means as middle class or upper income families to provide intelectually stimulating material to their kids. Because of programs like Sesame Street, both a child in a low income family and a child in an upper-income family can watch the same educational programming on PBS. Low income children need this programming more! By the time low income children are in kindergarten, there is a ton of evidence that they are already so far behind upper-income children educationally that they just can't compete. With access to programs like Sesame Street, this achievement gap can start to become smaller. Will a high-income kid be affected by the loss of Sesame Street? Probably not. This attitude seems to correlate with a lot of the problems I have with Mitt Romney's platforms. On the surface level, they may seem like good ideas but they disproportionately affect low-income people.

This is an old op-ed piece from one of my favorite economist's, Paul Krugman. I think what he says still rings true. When we hear politicians talk about debt, it always seems so simple; countries borrow money and then owe that money. Krugman explains that it isn't that simple. Ever since reading this piece, I've had a much different take on the idea of "national debt." Let me know if guys find him convincing.

I really like this guy. To me, he paints a really compelling picture of what is becoming a massive issue in this election, and the way he shoots down the image of the US "deep in hock to the Chinese" is both funny and really troubling. Honestly, the way the idea of national debt has been explained to me in the past has been, according to Krugman, entirely fictional. I agree with you, Eli, that politicians talk about debt in this way intentionally: they are able to convince people like me, with no background in economics, of very simple truths that line up with their platforms. That being said, Krugman does leave me with a lot more questions than answers. I am unclear about a lot of the mechanics of his description (the US owing money to itself, how these massive "debts" are even paid off), but it seems to me like the general message is that it isn't a really big deal. From what I can tell, this is a pretty convincing message.

Krugman says "Deficit-worriers portray a future in which we are impoverished by the need to pay back the debt." They think it's like a mortgage-that's how i see it. He says that we don't have to pay it back, just make sure it grows more slowly than the tax base. We owe it to ourselves, but I still think national debt is money owed that needs to be paid back and can inhibit economic growth. Dollars paid to the debt could be used for tangible things like infrastructure and education.

This article in The Economist does a good job of summing up where Obama had the edge over Romney. It was clear, as we've talked about, that his message resonated most with young women, minorities, the educated, and the young. He won female voters by eleven points, which was more than enough to beat Romney's seven point advantage among men, especially because women make up more of the population than men. I thought it was also interesting to learn that Obama enjoyed a lead of 13% among voters who had post-graduate degrees. The article does imply that Obama past legislation in order to reach certain groups. Their examples include the Lilly Ledbetter Act to reach women, the Dream Act for Latinos. They also acuse Obama's campaign for being unnecessarily negative about Romney's business background implying that he only cared about the rich. I didn't know that Obama's campaign opened three times as many field offices as Romney. Though it is disillusioning to consider all the things a good man like Obama must do to get elected, it's obvious his campaign was smart, and up to date. The graphs of who voted for each candidate are worth taking a look at. It's particularly interesting to me that Romney won the votes of people whose annual income in under $50,000 and Obama won with those making over $50,000.

I was most interested by the first and last paragraphs in this New Yorker article about the first Presidential debate. The beginning paragraph talks about how expectations made by the "expectorate" largely came true and how political interpretations and actual situations can be so utterly dominated by the media and other politicians' assumptions. It seems so simple that this sometimes anonymous group of "journalists, columnists, bloggers, television commentators, politicians, and 'strategists'" can have such a great impact on not only the perception of a political event but also the actual happenings because a candidate can just work to fulfill their expectations. People expected Romney to do well and he prepared and he won. (Though this article also makes the interesting distinction that not only did Romney win, Obama lost). The last paragraph frames Romney's flip-flopping tendencies in a different and more positive light. By constantly changing his viewpoints, both in his political career and as of late, Romney cannot be pinned down and sold as a specific type of bad person to the electorate. When Romney alters where he stands on the political spectrum and often successfully pulls himself into the center, the Obama campaign can again and again maintain that "all the evidence indicates that Romney has no 'core beliefs,'" but it makes their negative campaign much more difficult.

I personally find post-debate coverage helpful to determine who "won" the debate. As a decided voter, it's really hard for me to determine who "won" a debate, because I support what Obama/Biden say. That said, I'm not sure if it is helpful to the overall process. Post-debate coverage and polls are here to stay though, so we should get used to them and try to understand them better.

It is hard to look at who one and who lost a debate because it formed by the media. Yes we can all say that Romney came out harder and ready to play, while Obama was in the back seat watching the show. But no debate is going to change the mind of a decided and educated voter. With three debates prior to the election I think we have to wait until all three are finished to really form an idea of who won or lost the debates because then the majority of topics will be put on the table. Bottom line is you can be a great debater, but a not so great leader.

This article stood out to me, because it is exactly why I see Romney's plans as a completely the opposite of what American needs: they aren't any different than George W. Bush's. Americans saw what happened under George W. Bush, and nobody wants to go back to that. This line in the piece really summed up why Romney is doing so poorly, "To win the kind of victory that conservatives seem to think they should be winning, the Republican Party needs two things: A domestic agenda that offers more to hard-pressed families than just generic conservative rhetoric about the genius of capitalism, and a foreign policy program that reflects the hard lessons learned in Iraq and Afghanistan." As a liberal, I would never vote for Mitt Romney, but I do understand that the economy is not where a lot of people wanted it to be after Obama's first term. The question is: can Romney do a better job? I see a lot of similarities between Romney's policies and George W. Bush's policies, so I think that the economy would do worse. If other Americans, like the author of this article, see the same similarities, I don't see how Romney can win in November.

I think it is interesting, and absurd, how the Republican Party has looked for things to blame on some of their failings on. That being said, I also think it is unfair that past President's records affect prospective candidates chances, on either side of the political spectrum. Just because Romney is in the same political party as Bush dos not mean he will do similar things(even though he probably will do some). I agree with Anna that Romney and Ryan need to separate from Bush to establish that they are not the same and will not have the same results. Regardless of their policies I believe that candidates should be evaluated on their merits, and while the past should be considered, and their merits alone. To me, that is what this article is really saying.

Cameron, I agree with your idea - that parties can shift, and individual candidates shouldn't be bound into the economic principles of their party - but until Romney provides substantive plans for the economy, all anyone is going to hear from his campaign is the same conservative "free market" rhetoric that they heard from the Bush campaign. What he needs to do is lay out a specific plan and note what he's learned from the economic failure under Bush and how that has shaped his plan.

This piece begins to shake out the specific effects tax cuts have on economic growth. With so much general back and forth arguing about this, it is useful to look at the graph included in this article and try to understand what it really tells us. The graph that maps the economic growth between 1987 and 2005 clearly shows that the economy grew dramatically after the Bush and Clinton tax increases and dropped dramatically after the Bush tax cuts. But, what is most interesting is the discussion about other factors affecting the economy. Paul Ryan says that the increase was affected by the tech boom, lower trade barriers and peace. According to the conservative economists, the economy had already slowed before Bush's tax cuts and surprisingly, Glen Hubbard, who helped write Bush's plan is quoted saying that, " tax cut's don't translate quickly into higher growth. According to the Tax Policy Center, a "highly regarded" non-partisan group, "it's hard to make the argument that tax rates have a big effect on economic growth." So, this makes me wonder, what exactly are Ryan and Romney proposing and why do they think it will improve the economy? One very interesting point that is made is that tax cuts did make a difference when to top marginal rate was 70%..who knew that it was ever that high. According to this article, between, 1940 and 1980, taxes were that high at tech top. That is very different than today's 35%.

I don't have much to add here, but I fully support at tax rate of 70% or so after someone's income has reached a certain mark. That will never happen in America, but if we look at a lot of other countries in the world with high taxes, they have far fewer expenses to pay for (i.e. education, healthcare, etc.)

This is interesting. It's important to be thinking that there obviously were other factors going on during all these periods, but with all the discussion of - like John says - whether tax cuts actually work or not, this graph is an interesting way of understanding their role in the economy.

As I watched the video of Romney making those inflammatory remarks (here: http://www.motherjones.com/transition/inter.php?dest=http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser) about these "freeloaders," I wondered how this would play out politically. I loved this op-ed piece, because it did a nice job of explaining the political impact of Romney's remarks. Conservatives have been bashing Obama and the democrats for criticizing success and instigating class warfare. To me, this is actual class warfare; Romney has divided Americans into two categories of "makers and moochers" that is completely un-American. If the Romney campaign thinks he can win running on ideas like this, I think they are truly mistaken.

I agree that Romney should not have said those things about Americans and that using terms such as free-loaders suggests a lack of understanding, but reading this article reminded me of an article I read in Fortune magazine called "Is It Still OK to be Rich in America?" This article offered a different perspective on recent ideas about the American economy and the "1%". Overall it talked about how instead of trying to bring the rich down we should not make them out to be villains, but instead try to see what they did to become successful. There are a lot of people in this country who have had things handed to them and that needs to change. People need to realize that the American Dream is not equal outcome, but equal opportunity. An interesting statistic in the article was that even if all of the money that the 1% made was split with the 99%, as some people have wanted, the income would be less than half the income that people would make if they had a college degree, and by that I mean a legit degree, not French Art Underground Gothic History Degree.

Cameron, I understand where you're coming from in terms of people needing work hard if they want to succeed, but where do you expect people that work hard but don't come from wealthy families to get the money for college? Someone on student-aid at at a public university would fall into that 47% that Romney referred to. This money for college is not a hand-out, but rather should be looked at as a right. If people in this country work hard enough to get into college, America needs tap into those hard workers by paying for their college education. So if we take a look at how those people in the "1%" were successful, they probably went to college. In order for people in this country to go to college, a lot of them need aid from the government. On another less important note, your comment about a "French Art Undergound Gothic History Degree" frustrates me. There is nothing wrong with someone pursuing a career in art if that is what they are interested in. Art is an extremely important part of self expression and as a country, I believe we are too focused on the conventional notion that success means being wealthy.