Republican Wave

[DanS]

I don't know about anybody else, but I care about runaway spending and the enormous deficits. Those were the primary issues for the tea party.

[Hauldren Collider]

You have no idea what you're talking about. Yes, Reagan did increase the military budget (all the better to dole out pork to lobbyists!) but the deficit increased massively faster then military spending. Reagan's deficits were due to his massive tax cuts for the rich. In this case I mean literally just the rich who had their top tax rate cute from over 50% to just 28% (even lower then today) while everyone else only got a few percentage points drop. The tax rate on the rich was actually lower then the tax rate on the middle class.

Are you sure it was lower?

Also, the tax rate is marginal. If the tax brackets are, just as an example (not real numbers), 10% up to $20,000 and then 20% up to $100,000 and then 30% for $100,001+ then you pay 10% on the first $20k you earn then 20% for the next $80k and then 30% for everything after that. So no matter where you set the top bracket the richer people will always pay more in taxes.

[Jon Miller]

Why should the total amount matter? It doesn't make sense, the poor would have nothing if they paid the amount of tax of the wealthy.

And the rich do pay less taxes than the middle class:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

JM

[giblets]

1. Please drop the Reagan canard...the deficit from Reagan was military spending countering the Soviet Union, as has been continually pointed out, tax revenue increased and domestic spending decreased under Reagan. Reagan actually made cuts to Social Security and Medicaid.

So? He still had a massive deficit and decent approval ratings. I don't see the relevance of whether he redirected some money from the elderly to producing more hunks of metal. People may say the deficit is important when asked about it, but it doesn't seem to actually have much effect on whether they approve of or disapprove of the party in power.

[DinoDoc]

And the rich do pay less taxes than the middle class:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

JM

The top 10% paid 69.94% of the revenue from the Federal Personal Income Tax in 2008.

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

[Hauldren Collider]

So? He still had a massive deficit and decent approval ratings, regardless of whether he redirected some money from the elderly to producing more hunks of metal. People may say the deficit is important when asked about it, but it doesn't seem to actually have much effect on whether they approve of or disapprove of the party in power.

The relevant thing about Reagan is that he was able to make significant cuts into the entitlement programs without getting zapped by the third rail. Perhaps it is possible for this to happen again.

It's also worth pointing out that significant tracts of the military budget are spent on things the Pentagon doesn't even want--Congressmen shove things in there to get money spent in their district. I think that if a mindset develops enabling Congress to eliminate pet projects, a lot of the military budget will be shaven along with the bridges to nowhere.

[giblets]

The relevant thing about Reagan is that he was able to make significant cuts into the entitlement programs without getting zapped by the third rail. Perhaps it is possible for this to happen again.

That doesn't have much to do with the point Boris was making, which was that people don't really care about the deficit that much. Reagan's approval rating had no relationship with the size of the deficit and had everything to do with the economy and the Iran-contra affair.

[Aeson]

I think people care about the deficit (perhaps too much even), but that it's so easy to shift the blame from one party to the other that it essentially becomes a non-issue politically.

[KrazyHorse]

Ok, DD. You think it HCR and other policies were more important in the election that I do. I think the state of the economy was relatively more important than you do. :shrug:

Obviously, there is an intersection between policy and the economy - the Stimulus. Some thought it needed to be bigger, others smaller (or none at all), still others thought the size was okish but it was badly targetted (too few tax breaks, too many, too much infrastructure spending, too little...). Whatever, the point is that it did not work well enough. Disatisfaction with that probably falls under both my "it's mostly the economy, stupid" analysis and your "it's a rejection of the policies, dummy!" analysis.

Doesn't really matter. Whichever of us is correct, the Dems will learn the wrong lesson. They're Dems.

-Arrian

Analysis:

http://www.themonkeycage.org/2010/11/did_controversial_roll_call_vo.html

Findings: a regression against number of "yes" votes on controversial issues by democratic House incumbents + '08 House vote % in their district + '10 campaign money they raised + '08 presidential vote % in their district leads to the conclusion that there was a significant negative effect on the incumbent due to his yes votes

The issues considered were: health care, TARP, cap & trade and economic stimulus

Note that TARP occurred prior to Obama's presidency

However, the results are fairly stark (4% per "yes" vote on the 4 issues)

[KrazyHorse]

This is only one model, but is straightforward and I would imagine it is fairly robust to changes in methodology

Until I see evidence to the contrary, I am strongly swayed by this analysis.

[DinoDoc]

Thank you for saving my argument, KH.

[KrazyHorse]

data > hypothesis

[DinoDoc]

Hence the thanks that was offered.

[KrazyHorse]

It was a general statement for those who engage in these kinds of discussions.

Even exit polls on what issues inspired voters are not particularly convincing to me. Something like this is.

I support all efforts to make electoral discussions more reality-based.

[Arrian]

Interesting, KH. Thanks from me as well.

-Arrian