The Changing Political Winds

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program

IrvineRenter_IHB

New member
<object width="325" height="250"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/youtube" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="325" height="250"></embed></object>



The last time I saw an election like this one was in 1980 when Ronald Reagan won. I grew up in a household of core Democrats. To this day, my parents have never voted for a Republican. On election night, and for days after in 1980, my parents, like Democrats everywhere, were convinced Ronald Reagan was going to trash the economy. He was supposedly going to cut taxes, increase defense spending and balance the budget. They were afraid his attempts to do this were going to create a runnaway budget deficit resulting in financial Armageddon. They witnessed the Republicans take control of the Senate and nearly take control of the House in a landslide victory for Ronald Reagan.



Now the winds of change are blowing.



I spent today listening to core Republicans at work telling me how worried they were that Barack Obama is going to create an economic and social cataclysm from which the United States will never recover. He is going to raise everyone's taxes, his economic policies are going to make this recession a depression, they will take away all our guns, and his social policies will result in abortion clinics on every corner, gay prostitutes teaching Sunday School, and the the expansion of the culture of dependency due to the socialist entitlement programs he and the Democrats will pass. In short, it is the end of the world as we know it.



The Democrats were wrong in 1980, and the Republicans are wrong today.



The American populace is fickle when it comes to its political leaders. If peoples lives improve, they will vote incumbents back into office; if their lives do not improve, they will vote them out. When Ronald Reagan ran in 1984, he asked a simple question, "Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago." The answer was a resounding "yes." When people asked themselves if they were better off 8 years ago before Bush and the Republicans took control, they answered yesterday with a resounding "no," and threw the Republicans out of office. Whether or not the Republicans really are responsible for today's problems is not relevant -- the electorate believes they are, and that is why the Republicans were defeated on election day.



When Ronald Reagan came to office in 1980, the middle class had a firm grip on power in Washington. The labor unions were very strong, and their demands for ever-increasing salaries contributed to the problem of inflation which was acute at the time. Taxes on the "rich" (actually high wage earners) were very high. It was difficult to pool capital to expand business, and it was very expensive to do so. At that point in history, Reagan's policies of cutting taxes on high wage earners and diminishing the influence of labor unions helped quell inflation pressures, pool capital, and provide incentives for small businesses to create new jobs. It was a tremendous boost to the economy. It set the stage for 28 years of dominance of Conservative Republican ideas.



That is over now.



When taken to its extreme, the tax policy that favors the rich over the middle class begins to have serious problems. (If you want to see the extreme of this, look at Saudi Arabia). It is the middle class that earns money to buy products to make the companies of the rich successful. If the middle class is being squeezed to provide resources for the rich, there comes a point where the middle class cannot support our consumer economy. That is why the Bush tax cuts did not have the same impact as the Reagan tax cuts did. It was only masked by the rampant borrowing of the bubble years, particularly from 2002-2006. If not for the massive fiscal stimulus of borrowed money, our economy would not have recovered from the recession of 2001. All the Bush tax cuts accomplished was it helped make the rich much richer. Very little of that "trickled down" to the middle class in the way of wage growth, and our economy is suffered as a result. It is still suffering, and now that the bills are coming due, we are going to have a major recession.



We are about to see the pendulum swing back the other direction, perhaps for a long time given how large the majorities are in the House and Senate for the Democrats. Of course, if the Republicans are right, and if the policies of Barack Obama and the Democrats are a complete disaster, the electorate will throw them out of office as well. It was just 4 short years ago that the Republicans had the White house, a 30 seat majority in the House, and 56 Senators. It is amazing how quickly things can change when the political winds start to blow.
 
I see the same hysteria from Republicans you do.



I saw it on the faces of the Dems in 1994 - only they had no idea what was coming thier way. In a lot of ways, this is far worse. The GOP knew in 2006 they were up a creek, and they chose to ignore it.



What the Republicans really need is a fresh galvanizing issue - like rampant welfare abuse. Too bad they already slayed that dragon.
 
Sorry if this is O/T, but I thought <a href="http://www.latimes.com/la-fg-newspapers6-pg,1,482715.photogallery?1">this LA Times photo essay</a> of different newspapers was pretty good (including the Bakersfield Californian, No_Vas!).
 
I guess I am not the only one who made the connection between Reagan and Obama:



<a href="http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/SuperModels/why-obama-is-the-new-reagan.aspx">Why Obama is the new Reagan </a>
 
Ultimately, the electorate is a grey range of moderates. We have rabid liberals on the left in my estimation at about 15-20% of the population. We have equally rabid religious conservatives on the right at about 15-20% of the population.



In the middle, there's 60%. Reagan Democrats, Obama Republicans, and Blue Dog Democrats. Yes, believe it or not, Liberal Republicans.



In general, the majority wants basic dignity for everyone and wonders why we don't have basic security in the forms of accessible health care, job security with high wages and a sure retirement.



In a nutshell, the majority, some 60%, wants 'a little' socialism.



They look at Europe with universal health care and then look at the sob stories of insurance denied or blatant insurance abuse and wonder why don't we?



They hear about France and the short work week and the extended holidays and wonder why they are working 50 hours more a week.



They don't see the 30% unemployment in the under 28 crowd of minority groups in France, but they do wonder why there are riots.



The populace as Vaseline normally rants, wants the best of both worlds.



It'll be interesting times.



Two wars that need to end, successfully.



Health Care is broken. Is the fix universal health care, or universal coverage? Are they one and same? The root of our problem currently is the picking and choosing and chronic attempts to exclude coverage. Insurance is about statistics and risk spreading,or in the current companies, risk elimination. Frankly, I favor universal coverage with a one price fits all requirements of companies so they can't exclude or cherry pick. However that doesn't address the masses of uninsured and the exorbinant costs driven into the market.



Pensions and retirements are broken.



Major recession.



and too many expectations.



Obama is cool, calculating, and apparently intelligent. I relish the thoughts of a thoughtful, thinking President. Hopefully, he governs to the middle and doesn't get sucked into the pendulum swing. It's just a little socialism that people want.
 
[quote author="No_Such_Reality" date=1226016345]I relish the thoughts of a thoughtful, thinking President.</blockquote>


Amen, brother. One of the things I really liked about Obama was his long ads / videos that talked to voters like adults and weren't selling the candidate like a fast food hamburger. The other thing I liked is that he appeared to be able to connect with people of all ages - from very senior citizens to small children.
 
Comparing Obama to Reagan is a stretch, but I see your point. Obviously a majority of people are tired of Bush, and Obama offers a fresh perspective. But it is hard to compare the effect the election had between the two men. When Reagan took office the entire nation was in real trouble; run-away inflation, American hostages in Iran for a year, even/odd gas lines, high unemployment, food was expensive, blah, blah. Carter is and was the worst president in recent history in my opinion, it didn?t take much to improve America?s attitude following that disaster. Today things are nowhere as bad as in Reagan?s first election.



Outside the bubble markets, the economy isn?t that bad. Most people I associate with make more money today than they did a few years ago, inflation adjusted. Indeed foreclosures are at an all-time high, but the concentration of foreclosures in non-bubble markets is low enough to not be significant. Businesses and people not existing on toxic loans are still functioning and still getting loans. Granted the loans are more expensive, but nowhere near Carter rates.



Bush never was a really likable president, but he got reelected because people had confidence he could do a job. The election shows people lost confidence in Bush and his policies. I truly hope Obama does the right thing by addressing the economy through restoring fiscal responsibility. But Obama has not matched Reagan?s effect on the nation principally because the nation is no where near as bad today as it was following Carter.
 
[quote author="ConsiderAgain" date=1226022466]Comparing Obama to Reagan is a stretch, but I see your point. Obviously a majority of people are tired of Bush, and Obama offers a fresh perspective. But it is hard to compare the effect the election had between the two men. When Reagan took office the entire nation was in real trouble; run-away inflation, American hostages in Iran for a year, even/odd gas lines, high unemployment, food was expensive, blah, blah. Carter is and was the worst president in recent history in my opinion, it didn?t take much to improve America?s attitude following that disaster. Today things are nowhere as bad as in Reagan?s first election.



Outside the bubble markets, the economy isn?t that bad. Most people I associate with make more money today than they did a few years ago, inflation adjusted. Indeed foreclosures are at an all-time high, but the concentration of foreclosures in non-bubble markets is low enough to not be significant. Businesses and people not existing on toxic loans are still functioning and still getting loans. Granted the loans are more expensive, but nowhere near Carter rates.



Bush never was a really likable president, but he got reelected because people had confidence he could do a job. The election shows people lost confidence in Bush and his policies. I truly hope Obama does the right thing by addressing the economy through restoring fiscal responsibility. But Obama has not matched Reagan?s effect on the nation principally because the nation is no where near as bad today as it was following Carter.</blockquote>


The economy was not in serious trouble when Reagan took office. It was not until he encouraged Paul Volcker to raise interest rates to combat inflation that we had a vicious double-dip recession. He gave everyone hope in our time of trouble, and we had nothing other than our faith in him and his policies to lead us to believe that things would get better. The economic woes of this country are ahead of us and not behind us. Robert Shiller and other prominent economists (I define prominent as those who saw this coming and realized its potential impact) are predicting that this recession will be worse than the one under Reagan. I think the parallels are stronger than you realize.
 
[quote author="No_Such_Reality" date=1226016345]



The populace as Vaseline normally rants, wants the best of both worlds.



</blockquote>


Somebody has been been reading the Orange Juice Blog I see.
 
<blockquote>

The economy was not in serious trouble when Reagan took office.</blockquote>


I was around then and I just disagree with you on this. Things sucked in the early eighties under Carter, and the economy and national sentiment changed practically overnight under Reagan.



<blockquote>

The economic woes of this country are ahead of us and not behind us. Robert Shiller and other prominent economists (I define prominent as those who saw this coming and realized its potential impact) are predicting that this recession will be worse than the one under Reagan. I think the parallels are stronger than you realize.</blockquote>


Perhaps, but I have hope we will not return to anything as bad as the Carter years. A difference between the two eras is the economy <em>was</em> bad under Carter; however, it is predicted to be bad post Bush. That fact leaves the opportunity to change our projected path before actually arriving at a sever recession.
 
I think we should look at the 2 policies. One is raising tax to stimulate the economy and one is to raise spending. I too grew up during the Carter year, voted for Reagan and never voted for any Democrat again. I don't always vote for Republican party though.
 
[quote author="IrvineRenter" date=1226023282]The economy was not in serious trouble when Reagan took office. It was not until he encouraged Paul Volcker to raise interest rates to combat inflation that we had a vicious double-dip recession. He gave everyone hope in our time of trouble, and we had nothing other than our faith in him and his policies to lead us to believe that things would get better. The economic woes of this country are ahead of us and not behind us. Robert Shiller and other prominent economists (I define prominent as those who saw this coming and realized its potential impact) are predicting that this recession will be worse than the one under Reagan. I think the parallels are stronger than you realize.</blockquote>
Sorry IR but your facts aren't matching up.



Volcker began raising interest rates after being appointed by Carter in late August. <a href="http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/statistics/dlyrates/fedrate.html">The Fed Funds rate was 11% when he was sworn in, and it was 15% by the end of October.</a> It drifted back and forth before topping out ~20% in February of 1980, 8 full months before Reagan was elected and a year before he took office. It fell in the intervening months, to a low of 8 1/2% in June 1980 before shooting right back up again to 20% the month Reagan was sworn into office. To be completely accurate, Volcker killed the rampant inflation and Reagan's optimism and marginal rate cuts spurred growth. But I can't find any record of them intentionally working together to accomplish this.



Here's a TIME magazine article from 10/22/79: <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,947495-1,00.html">The Squeeze of '79</a>



<blockquote>As chairman of the seven-member Board of Governors of the U.S. Federal Reserve, Volcker works in a complex and mysterious world. But last week, after less than three months in the Fed job, Volcker abruptly moved to stage center in Washington's so far faltering struggle to halt the price explosion that is sapping the nation's vitality. He committed Federal Reserve policy to a campaign not just to support the dollar but to attack inflation at its root source at home, by making money both scarce and costly, as well as by tightening up on the various procedures that the board has available to accomplish that purpose.



Volcker's self-styled brand of "pragmatic monetarism" is bound to make the nation's developing recession deeper, and thus further cloud the re-election chances of Jimmy Carter, the man who appointed him. Nonetheless, the Fed's new anti-inflation activism is one of the most hopeful signs in a decade that Washington is at last becoming serious about combatting the economy's debilitating price spiral. As much as anything, the upheavals and spasms that overtook markets everywhere last week reflected an almost panicky realization by all sorts of people, from big plungers on the commodities exchanges to working couples hoping to make a few hundred dollars on the rise of a stock, that they may no longer be able to make investment decisions based on expectations of cheap money, easy credit and endlessly climbing prices. </blockquote>
 
Back
Top