Super Tuesday II: Election Boogaloo

Clinton is right to attack him from the left. He is--economically--a big gornisht, and represents "change" about as much as McCain does.

Daniel,

If you don't like what's being said about Obama now, get ready for a rough time until Pennsylvania.  Hillary has to make him seem like just an empty suit with a voice rather than his present image of a new force in American politics.  This is without doubt the most interesting race I've seen.   

Things are not looking good.  HRC and Obama are going to tear into each other for the next 3 months and spend all their money.  Meanwhile, McCain is actually going to embrace Bush and unify the Republicans to back him.  HRC is then going to steal the nomination with the superdelegates.  That's going to result in the alienation of a large part of the democratic base, particularly young people who are going to go MIA during the general election.  That will result in McCain defeating HRC, which will ultimately spell disaster for middle-class Americans.

And that brings me to the phenomenon in American politics that truly amazes me.  Why do middle-class, middle-income Americans vote for any of these people?  If your family income is $75k/year before taxes, translating into $50K/year after taxes and you have to raise 2 kids on that income, why would you vote for a Republican or a Democrat?  Seriously?  If I were middle income, and barely making ends meet, I would want the government to stop taking my money and giving it away to other countries and spending it on wars.  My biggest concern would not be terrorism or peace in Iraq, it would be, how am I going to make ends meet and provide for my kids when the government is taking $1 of every $3 dollars that I earn with the sweat of my brow.  It would be one thing if the government were using that money in a way that directly benefits a middle-class American.  But that's not what happens.  Instead the money is given to interests that do not then translate that money into something that benefits and eases the strains on middle-class Americans.  Today a report was released that shows that a couple retiring in 2008 will need to have saved $225,000 in order to cover their health care costs for the remainder of their life.  Are you kidding me?  What happened to the hundreds of thousands of dollars that couple gave during their working years to the government to keep for when that couple was going to retire?

My wife is from Sweden, and at least twice a year I have to face my inlaws and somehow try to explain why living in America is so great, even though they get 6 weeks of vacation each year, and I get 3, and they get 18 months of PAID maternity/paternity leave, while I get 3, and they get world-class FREE healthcare, and I have to pay for my healthcare, and they get to retire in peace and without anxiety about being ill or destitute, and I have to worry not only about saving for my own retirement but also about my parents who may not have $225,000 (probably $300,000 by the time they reach retirement age) for healthcare when they retire.  And perhaps I could justify some of it if I could show them that we here in America have all of these advances, technologies, comforts, large houses, etc. that they don't have, except that they have all of those things too!  To add insult to injury, I make twice as much as my mother-in-law, father-in-law, and brother-in-law combined, and they still seem to have everything in Sweden that I have here and more!  What the hell is going on?  What if, God forbid, I was "middle-income".  I don't know if I could handle the strain of living hand to mouth month after month, year after year.

Fortunately, I'm not middle income, and I have the Republicans and Democrats who supposedly look after my interests.  But the vast majority of Americans are middle income.  Why do they vote Republican or Democrat?

Go to China, they have dirt-cheap healthcare, negligiable waiting list and world-class medical technology.  How do they do it?  by paying doctors low salaries.

Do they also have good spelling teachers.  If so, perhaps you should join me.

I'm glad you figured out how to get to high income, congratulations on that. But understanding global economics--my goodness it's complex. It's almost as if any analysis you give is going to sound naive, simply because what you are talking about is so enormous.

I sometimes fancy that I get it, but I really don't, and I'm endlessly surprised how things actually turn out. And yet, I don't believe that economics is a matter of opinion, the ideas will either work or they won't. So there's a few countries that the Chicago school actually saved from economic catastrophe. Who would have figured, but it happened.

There are a few things that, historically, grow an economy. One is the speed with which capital moves--and right now we can move capital at the speed of light. So, there's a point where economics and physics meet. The other thing is an invention of new technology and it's movement through society to become essential. Right now, what we are doing seems pretty cutting edge, but it's still the Model-T. Those are the only two constants I know of.

And all of this growth has to take place despite government, which slows things down, and despite the tendency of capitalism to self-destruct. It's why I'm a religious person. Otherwise there's nothing but rubber bands holding the whole thing together. But that's naive isn't it? See what I mean?

You know who is keeping health care cost in US high? The US Medical board. They restrict the supply of available doctors by raising the standards required to obtain a medical license in order to boost the income of doctors.

I agree, it's way over my head too.  But still, what baffles me is the fact that the middle-class votes for people who then set to work taking their money and spending it in ways that don't benefit them, and as a result, causing inflation, which further devastates the middle-class.

Look, it may be in my short-term best interest to vote for a Republican like McCain.  He has pledged to make the tax cuts, which at least temporarily favor me, permanent.  He has pledged to reduce taxes on corporations and give tax breaks to those companies that invest in R&D.  He will likely continue investing heavily in building up the military complex and spending money on R&D for the defense industry.  That's all great for me.  I'm a patent lawyer, and that will mean more work and more money, which I can horde away for when the economy totally collapses b/c the people can't pay what the government has borrowed to make this agenda possible in perpetuity.  But what about the middle-class?  They get totally screwed.  The so-called tax cuts don't even begin to help them, and they don't get something in return for all the money that is taken from their paychecks.  So, again, I am left amazed.  Why would the 200,000,000+ middle-class Americans living in this country perpetuate this system that is squashing them?

quick, me must lobby for a return to the gold standard and abolishing the fractional reserve banking system.

Sure, if you want the economy to collapse tomorrow instead of in 10 years.  BTW, I know you're being sarcastic.  But your sarcasm is misplaced since I'm not advocating for any such idiotic move.

I read a quote in City Journal, I forgot who wrote it, that the apocalypse has a way of not showing up.

For instance, there was a time where predictions of future economic doom would have been completely rational, and no one--no one, could even conceive that this little schlep in California who kept going to Radio Shack was going to change the world. But that's what Steve Wozniak did. He built the first personal computer with parts available to everyone. Can you imagine the shambles the economy would be in if GM was still the anchor? We would have had a major depression.

So, yes, I think tax cuts are a good thing, if done wisely. Actually, almost anything is a good thing if done wisely. And it's one of the things I'm listening for--a very concrete economic plan from someone. I suspect that the folks in Pennsylvania have their ears tuned for that too.

I listened to Obama last night, maybe the sixth speech I've heard--and if there is a better public speaker in the world, I'd be surprised. But the intro 'in my experience as a community organizer' is starting to wear thin.

Ahh, the other point you made that was good, also historical in terms of economics--the more money floating around in the more hands, the better. Once it becomes to concentrated in the hands of too few (and I don't know what that critical mass is) you get a slowdown. But if you try to unconcentrate it through taxation, you also get a slowdown.

I suspect the economists are just guessing like everyone else, but they just say it so much better.

There are thousands of families across America for whom apocalypse has already happened.  They are losing their homes.  They are losing their jobs.  They don't have healthcare.  They are even losing their lives, because they don't have healthcare coverage or they were abandoned by their insurance company during their illness.  Last year a teenaged Armenian girl in L.A. died because CIGNA refused to pay for her operation, citing it as "experimental" and then changing its mind just hours before the girl died.  It may not be a national apocalypse, but if you are the parents of that girl, it is the apocalypse for you, isn't it?

Yep. You're absolutely right.

But we were talking macro, right? You mentioned a total economic collapse--that's what I was responding to. And I hear you on the other issues you raise, but I don't know what a solution is. The reason families are losing homes and jobs is because the economy is slowing down. I thought we hit a wall on that one. But if you've got some ideas, go ahead. Healthcare is a mess--any ideas? I'm listening.