posted
I don't think a lot of people truly care, since it doesn't impact them in any direct way. The economy's been on a kind of mini-boom lately, at least in Florida, and gas prices are low. It will be kind of weird for Republicans to lose a lot of seats now, it seems to me.
On the other hand, who has really been directly touched by the WoT? So, it's hard for me to really see how that's a major issue, either.
No, I really see the main issues being cultural ones, and the war in Iraq and the WoT are really just proxy battles that represent the main thing.
This isn't to say, of course, that there aren't people who primarily care about the WoT or The Iraq War.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If people don't care, why is Iraq always at the top of opinion polls about top issues?
As far as the economy...The housing bubble has finally burst, and that will have an huge effect, dragging down the rest of the economy for years.
quote: The Commerce Department reported that the median price for a new home sold in September was $217,100, a drop of 9.7 percent from September 2005. It was the lowest median price for a new home since September 2004 and the sharpest year-over-year decline since December 1970. The weakness in new home prices was even sharper than a 2.5 percent fall in the price of existing homes last month, which had been the biggest drop on record.
quote: If people don't care, why is Iraq always at the top of opinion polls about top issues?
Right, well as I intimated, my theory is that it's just a proxy issue than anything that's really vitally important to anyone's life right now.
As to the economy, there was some debate about the significance of the housing drop on NPR. One guy said it was bad, another guy said it didn't really mean much since that kind of drop had happened before and the economy was fine, and that also, it was a drop after a huge housing boom.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I get your point about proxy issues, and that may be a small factor. But when 35-40% of the electorate say Iraq the top voting issue, that means to me that yes, the election is largely a referendum on Iraq. It's the biggest drain on the Republicans and why they are in so much trouble.
quote: Iraq is far and away the most important issue on voters' minds. In this week's Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, 36% said Iraq was the top voting issue followed by 22% for job creation. Sitting at 15% was something called "the war on terror." More starkly, a just-released New York Times/CBS News poll said the issue voters most want Congress to deal with is the war in Iraq at 38%; terrorism is a mere 4%.
quote: As far as the economy...The housing bubble has finally burst, and that will have an huge effect, dragging down the rest of the economy for years.
Is that really true? Here are more quotes from the same article
quote: The 5.3 percent rise in new home sales in September followed a 3.8 percent rise in August and was the biggest one-month gain since an 8 percent increase in March. However, sales had fallen for three straight months from May through July. The rise in sales last month was led by a 23.9 percent jump in the West. Sales were also up 6.9 percent in the South. However, sales fell by 34.5 percent in the Northeast and were down 6.3 percent in the Midwest.
Could it be that certain areas are having needed market corrections?
quote: In other economic news, the government said that orders to U.S. factories for big-ticket manufactured goods, powered by a huge jump in demand for commercial jetliners, soared in September by the largest amount in more than six years. The Commerce Department reported that orders for durable goods rose by 7.8 percent last month to $226.7 billion. The increase followed two consecutive months of declines and was the biggest gain since June 2000. The improvement was more than triple the 2.3 percent gain that Wall Street had been expecting, but virtually all of the strength came from a giant 183.2 percent increase in orders for commercial aircraft. Outside of transportation, orders were up a far weaker 0.1 percent. In a third report, the Labor Department said the number of newly laid off workers filing claims for unemployment benefits rose by 8,000 last week to a seasonally adjusted 308,000. That increase was in line with expectations.
quote: For September, transportation orders rose by 27.6 percent as the big jump in demand for commercial aircraft offset a 6.1 percent drop in orders to automakers, who have been struggling recently under the impact of weak sales of trucks and sport utility vehicles.
Sounds like the economy is much more complicated than just the housing market which is fluctating after record growth for years.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This election is a referendum on our long term goals, not on short term economics. For several years, Republicans have capitalized on knee-jerk reactions to 9/11 and short term fears to gain popular support for a whole array of policies that don't really make sense in the long term. As time passes, it is inevitable that the long term effects of what we are doing slowly becomes more clear.
Iraq is simply the biggest and most well-known instance of this. But many of the other big issues out there feed into the same issue - scandals cloaked under an illusion of righteous politicians, torture hidden from the public eye, preemptive threats that have only made situations in N. Korea or Iran worse, or even just the invention of false charges against political opponents. All of these things work well for Bush administration's political goals in the short term, but inevitably blow up in the long term, undermining trust in Bush's party.
So, yes, we do have some short term economic prosperity, but I think people have figured out that it is masking long term economic problems. After all, this administration has produced short-term economic prosperity in part through massive deficit spending - tax cuts that will have to be paid back plus interest in years to come. Most fiscal conservatives realize that this too is short changing our long-term success for short-term prosperity.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Could it be that certain areas are having needed market corrections?
That's what a housing bubble is - it is when the market prices go too high, and a correction is necessary.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: But when 35-40% of the electorate say Iraq the top voting issue, that means to me that yes, the election is largely a referendum on Iraq.
Let's say for the sake of argument that we say those poll numbers are valid. I guess my question is, why.
I think part of the reason that I'm wondering about this is that it's not something anyone is running on in Florida. At least, directly. None of the gubernatorial candidates are talking about it. Beyond the small amount of mud being slung, for all the candidates the issues seem to be focused entirely around domestic issues.
Politicians aren't stupid. If they thought there were votes to be gained by centering their campaign around Iraq, which, if your belief of its importance is correct, it would seem like they would do, they would do it.
Maybe Florida is weird. Of course, it's completely possible I"m just not seeing things here or in other states and am not seeing the big picture.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Could it be that certain areas are having needed market corrections?
That's what a housing bubble is - it is when the market prices go too high, and a correction is necessary.
And to build off this point, economic corrections tend to *hurt*. They hurt everyone whose expectations were pinned on the false belief that housing prices would just continue to rise, and rise - which is pretty much every average American who owns a house (and silly people in the housing industry who should have known better).
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
If you listen to the portion of the interview aired, he seems really unnecessarily combative and doesn't answer the questions asked of him. Anyway, according to him, Iraq is not a top issue at all; it's all about "local races about the local issues."
In my opinion it's actually somewhere in the middle. Nationally, I think people definitely do care very much about Iraq and how it's being handled. I don't honestly know, however, how much it's influencing elections from the State level down, though.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, another thing is is that the letdown, if there is one, really hasn't happened yet, and a lot of people will still be voting on the housing boom.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The party that holds the White House usually loses a lot of seats in off-term elections. The GOP is predicted to lose a very few. Historically, this shows the GOP is holding its popularity surprisingly well.
No election is every really a referendum on a specific issue (except those that are literally referenda!). But I'm sure Iraq is an important issue for many voters.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: They hurt everyone whose expectations were pinned on the false belief that housing prices would just continue to rise, and rise - which is pretty much every average American who owns a house (and silly people in the housing industry who should have known better).
How does it affect an average American homeowner who is not selling their home? This actually helps many people who do not have a home as prices are coming down in certain areas. This is good news for some, and bad news for others. Historically real estate is an excellent investment because of the ROI gains over time.
quote: So, yes, we do have some short term economic prosperity, but I think people have figured out that it is masking long term economic problems. After all, this administration has produced short-term economic prosperity in part through massive deficit spending - tax cuts that will have to be paid back plus interest in years to come. Most fiscal conservatives realize that this too is short changing our long-term success for short-term prosperity.
This "short term economic prosperity" has been going on for Bush's entire term in office. Even after the huge financial losses after 9/11 and Katrina, we are still in an excellent economy. Unemployment has been roughly 5% or less for years, Homeownership is up, the deficit is coming down, tax receipts are up, and so on. Not that you will see it being widely reported. Any good economic news has to be 'balanced' with some bad news, mostly because Bush cannot be given credit for anything positive.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: The GOP is predicted to lose very few seats? By who, the GOP?
By pollsters, of course. Has the GOP released predictions?
Perhaps I should have said "few" rather than "very few." Fewer than average for off-term elections, to be sure.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
DK: incorrect. The recovery, which didn't begin as early as some claim (recoveries are measured as being above trend, not merely positive) is significantly smaller than previous recoveries after similar recessions.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu13: The unemployment has not been roughly 5% or under for years? Homeownership is not up? The economy is not doing well? I don't see how your post refutes mine?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think what the Republicans in power are finding is the big disconnect that comes from the confusion over what is the "Middle Class".
See, for some, as long as the markets are up, and their stock prices continue to rise, then to the the economy is doing good.
Rich Republicans consider people with merely a few million dollars to be middle class, and those folks who have major investments see the stock market, and lower taxes, and think, "Hey we are doing great."
However people like me, who's biggest investment and chunk of my net-worth is my house, followed by my aging car and then my retirement account, the economy does not look too fine.
My income has not increased in the past few years. It has actually decreased, but I believe that is an exception. Others have seen their incomes stagnate as industries strive to compete with overseas competition by cutting payrolls.
Mean while the value of that income decreases as I have to pay a much larger part of my income to cover essential medical costs. My employer has little sympathy for me since his costs are increasing to cover my health care as well. My employer continues to tell me, "I can't give you a raise this year, because we have to pay more for your healthcare, and even then, your costs of it are going up too."
So if you consider a new factor that employees are aware of--take home pay after taxes and insurance and other medical costs--our personal economy is in poor shape.
Add to that such things as lack of faith that our jobs will be here five years from now, and you get a lot of worried grunts in the world.
Then add to that, the fact that the low interest rates had millions gobbling up home equity loans to pay for their consumption. If the housing market continues to go down, then those loans devalue, and those who borrowed are in a real financial fix.
No those who consider the middle class to be $50-$150,000/year do not see a good economy right now, despite the stock markets.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
We've only just ducked back under 5%, and this is a couple years (or more, according to you) into what should be a boom!
The economy is doing better than average, but far less better than it has done during recoveries from recessions of similar lengths. In particular, growth in government revenue has been dismal in comparison to anticipated levels, meaning future debt predictions keep being increased.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:This "short term economic prosperity" has been going on for Bush's entire term in office.
Dot-com bust?
And yes, Bush's term in office really is just the short term. The damage done by our massive deficit is something that will last through many many Presidents, and could damage our economy for generations - if not permanently.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:By 2001 the bubble's deflation was running full speed. A majority of the dot-coms ceased trading after burning through their venture capital, often without ever making a gross profit. Investors often jokingly referred to these failed dot-coms as either "dot-bombs" or "dot-compost".
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: If you didn't read the news, Megan, how much would Iraq be effecting you?
Hmm. I suppose it's possible to avoid news in this day and age. It's very hard for me to imagine being that unaware of the situation of the world. However, I suppose if I didn't know anything about the situation in Iraq except for the fact that American troops were there, it wouldn't affect me much...except for the fact that I have a very dear friend who's actually there right now. So, it would affect me to the extent that I cared about the safety of this friend, I guess.
I'm a little unsure what you're trying to get at with the question, to be honest. Are you saying that people who don't watch or read news in some form don't care? Are you saying that a substantial portion of the electorate doesn't get news in any form? If so, then I submit that these people are likely ones who don't vote. I think anyone who is aware enough to vote is also aware enough that they get news in some way.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Megan - at least that we should be aware. We are citizens for heaven's sake. If we aren't aware and it doesn't affect us, then shame on us.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:How does it affect an average American homeowner who is not selling their home?
People who bought during the boom may wind up owing substantially more on their homes than they could make by selling them.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think what I'm trying to get at is that Iraq really *noticeably* impacts the lives of a few people. People aren't dying in vast numbers over it. It's not really *noticeably* effecting the lives of people in the U.S..
Am I saying that it shouldn't be important and voted on? No.
I am just saying that, for a lot of people, the fact that there is an Iraq war someplace isn't going to influence their vote because it doesn't really impact them.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In fact, I am willing to bet that the way [edit: a lot of] people perceive the Iraq war is almost exactly the way they perceive Bush.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: How does it affect an average American homeowner who is not selling their home?
Even if a homeowner had no plans to sell for years, when the market drops so does their equity. Along with that loss of equity goes a mind-frame of prosperity that effects purchasing decisions, as well as reducing the chance they can get a home equity loan. Those loans pump a lot of money through the economy.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: I think what I'm trying to get at is that Iraq really *noticeably* impacts the lives of a few people. People aren't dying in vast numbers over it.
Yes, they are. I know personally exactly the same number of people killed in Iraq as I know personnally who were killed on 9/11. I imagine that is true for a lot of folks. So would you say that 9/11 doesn't impact us?
Edit to add: If we vote on only what impacts us personally, then shame on us again. I would hate to believe that Americans are, as a whole, that self-centered.
And, for goodness sake, how does SSM impact most of us personally?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Curious how are perspectives change with time. In 2000 when Bush was running for president, Americans were outraged when the price of gasoline hit $1.60/gallon. Now people are talking about 2.30/gallon being low?
The current "low gas prices" are still higher (even when adjusted for inflation) than at any time between 1984 and the fall of 2005.
I'm currently teaching a class on energy resources. My text book, which was published in 2005 (meaning written prior 2004), flatly rejects the possibility that crude oil process could stay at over $30/barrell for any length of time without government action. The price for a barrell of oil has been higher than that for the past 3 years.
In 1998, crude oil was selling for $11/barrel and I heard an oil industry executive predict that we would never see substantially higher oil prices in our life times. In 2001, when Bush took office the average prices for a barrel of oil was $23.00. In 2005, the averge price for a barrel of oil was $50.08. So far in 2006, the price of a barrel of oil has is just over $59. Although that price dropped to aroun $50 in October, its already back up $58.67 as of today.
Let's get this straight, our current "low oil prices" are more than double the price of oil when Bush took office.
[ November 03, 2006, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I know personally exactly the same number of people killed in Iraq as I know personnally who were killed on 9/11. I imagine that is true for a lot of folks. So would you say that 9/11 doesn't impact us?
For a lot of people, it doesn't. Look at Morbo's WoT numbers.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
President Bush argues that Iraq is our premiere front on the War on Terror.
As it goes bad, as it seems to be creating more terrorists than its destroying, then the risk to all of us gets worse.
Suddnely President Bush is doing a flip/flop. Iraq may not be going well, but the War On Terror is going great. We are protecting you, don't mind the terror recruitment tool along the Euphrates.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: My text book, which was published in 2005 (meaning written prior 2004), flatly rejects the possibility that crude oil process could stay at over $30/barrell for any length of time without government action.
What is the name of that text book? Could you please provide the page it cites this on? I'd be very curious to read that. Does your text book say how the price of oil is set?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
DK, The text book is called "Sustainable Energy, Choosing Among Options" by Tester, Drake, Driscoll, Golay and Peters. and is published by MIT press. The discussion of oil prices and reserves is in Chapter 2 but I can't find the know the page and don't have time to find it right now.
This text book is highly critical of the entire theory of peak oil, an opinion which is to say the least highly controversial. It presents an opinion which I have found to be prevalent in the oil industry which is that cheap oil will be available for a very long time. I view which I find requires some serious mental gymnastics to accept.
The reason I reference this was not to suggest in any way that I agree with the authors or to suggest that there is some sort of conspiracy which is keeping oil prices artificially high. I think the economics of supply and demand are more than adequate to explain the current price of oil.
My point was directed at Storm Saxons initial claim that "gas prices are low". When you consider that the scholars who wrote my very recent textbook thought that $30/barrel oil was outrageous and very unlikely to happen but that the nation now considers $50/barrel oil cheap, you get an idea of how much has changed in the past 2 to 3 years.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, comparative to a couple months a go it is, so I think it *feels* cheap, but I don't disagree with you, Rabbit.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: No those who consider the middle class to be $50-$150,000/year do not see a good economy right now, despite the stock markets.
While I completely agree with you that there is a big disconnect between the Republican power brokers and the middle class on the economy. I would like to point out that the median household income in the US in 2005 was $46,326. So even those who consider the middle class to be $50-$150,000/year have a big disconnect with the majority of americans whose household income is lower that 50 K.
The key economic indicators which most people use just don't get at what's real going on in the typical middle income American.
The GDP only measures the goods and services bought and sold which is at best a crude indicator of real changes in human welfare. First, whe stuff is lost or destroyed peoples real well being drops but that doesn't get subtracted from the GDP. The amount people must spent to replace thing however, does. If I wreck my car and I have to buy a new one, the GDP goes up but my welfare has actually dropped.
The GDP also doesn't consider any value in the non-cash economy of volunteers and household work. Putting your kids in daycare rather than caring for them yourself is good for the economy because people who are paid to care for children are part of the cash economy while people who care for their own children are not. If I were to pay my husband 10K/year for cleaning our house and he were to pay me $10K/year for the meals I cook, the GDP would go up by 20 K but their would be no actual change in human well being. If anything, our wealth would actually drop because we would have to pay taxes on that extra 20K a year. Money you pay household workers is not tax deductable.
Then consider job creation as an economic indicator. If the fact that "making work" is considered a good thing doesn't immediately alert you to the fact that something is wrong then look at the details. When the government considers the number of jobs, they count a 10K/year job the same as they count a 500 K/year job. What people need isn't "jobs". What we need is housing, food, clothing, transportation, medical care, entertainment and something worthwhile to do with our lives. A minimum wage job flipping burgers doesn't adequately provide any of those things.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
You got me.
