The two "redistricting" links are gold:
http://www.informedpublic.com/redistrict.jpg
http://house.style.net/usa.jpg
Posted by uncle on 2004-11-05 07:55:38 +0000
I agree with your post MF, the problem is that this burgening third America has no power, no money, no clout, and is certainly outnumbered in votes by the overwhelling 1st third and the fractured 2nd. Christ, it would be hard to get a 3rd party candidate elected to senate even in VT these days.
I believe our kids our double fucked as I also agree with the perspective in that piece on economics as well.
The problem with the Nixon analogy IS the economics. This debt is frightening. In the days of big expensive wars like WWII, the people who had the money paid for the wars- income tax rates higher than 70% for the top bracket- and the people that didn't have the cash fought the wars. Now, money goes on the tab and the poor are still the ones dying. Funny how all those big corperations like GE and GM grew out of that "oppressive" tax structure. Unless some president actually gets the balls to tell the Billionairs that they are going to have to pay this debt down, the economy can never be strong again.
SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS DOES NOT WORK. Sorry to be the intelectual democrat talking down to the masses but SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS DOES NOT WORK.
Posted by tgl on 2004-11-05 14:50:14 +0000
Maybe you could post some reasons behind that assertion, than I might BELIEVE YOU.
Posted by uncle on 2004-11-05 18:59:36 +0000
From Wikipedia:
More generally traditional economists point to the "overhang" of deficits from the Reagan era, the S&L bailout, the effects of a ballooning federal budget deficit, the defense budget cuts which began in earnest in 1989, and the expectation of lack of continued fiscal discipline as being the source of the recession. These arguments focus on the Reagan Deficits, which supply siders vehemently denied would occur, and in some cases pretend did not even happen. Critics of supply side economics take these "head in the sand" positions to be indications that supply side economics is a religion, not a school of economic thought, and that it has a "one size fits all" approach to policy, namely cutting upper income taxes.
More vehement critiques of supply side economics dismiss the entire project as a complete failure which is "out of touch with reality" and a mere trojan horse for reducing marginal tax rates on upper income brackets. These critiques are found in Samuel Bowles work, which argues that real productivity fell under supply-side taxation regimes on a unit-worker basis. Paul Krugman, of MIT, called supply-side economics "Peddling Prosperity" and dismissed it as being unworthy of serious economists in a 1994 book written for the general audience.
These criticisms point to the explosion in deficits, the failure of the "Laffer Curve" to materialize and the conversion of price volatility to currency volatility as proofs that supply side economics does not work.
The long jobs drought after the recession which began in 2001 has provided further ammunition for critics of supply side theory. After a string of massive tax reductions, which added over a trillion dollars to the deficit, and managed to produce only tepid growth after three years, both liberal and conservative economists have attacked the paradigm of "deficits don't matter" promulgated by the avowedly supply side Executive Branch of George W Bush. The supply-siders have difficulty blaming the Federal Reserve, whose chairman backed the tax packages and has kept the federal funds rate in an "easy" monetary stance - and at the same time the lack of results has been extremely visible.
If you want more I'll provide.
And take subjective evidence if you like- did you like the first Bush supply side economy better or the second one?
Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-11-05 19:16:38 +0000
Excellent post uncle. I point to the uber-rich concept as a reason for its failure. When people making 2,3, or 5 million $$ a year (and are probably worth five times that) they are already spending as much $$ as they want or even as much as they can. When they get a tax break, very little (percentage wise) goes back into the economy, and "trickles down." Tax breaks for the lower and middle class spur the ecomony more, faster...