And obviously neither is Matt Stoller
Matt Stoller, who I’m told is a “fairly prominent” left-wing blogger, has a theory as to why we Republicans think that the economy is doing so well:
Matt’s theory is that we Republicans think the economy is strong because Republicans live in — get this, I swear he just pulled this term out of his ass while he was talking — areas benefiting from a “Republican Economy” based on military spending, weapons manufacturing, “big business”, and other nefarious industries.
And, according to Matt Stoller, these “Republican Economy” areas are doing pretty good — thus our perception is only based on the fact that the economy is good. But just where we live*. Not everywhere else. Like where Democrats live.
Ace notes that areas subjected to a Democratic Economy’s chief exports, “enlightement, sharing, caring, and love” aren’t doing as well as the areas under a Democratic Economy.
At the end of his rant, Matt reminds us that he’s not an economist.
No shit.
_______
I’m not an economist either, Matt — but let me give you the actual reason Republicans keep insisting that the economy is strong and robust is because it is.
*Matt — I live in über-liberal Austin, TX. And I’m a Republican. And I believe that the economy is strong. So much for your theory, putz.
Are you going to back that up with any evidence?
I don’t know whether ‘Republican areas’ are or aren’t doing better economically but my personal theory about why Republicans are more optimistic about the economy is because- get this- they’re wealthier!
Hey Preston.
Contrary to popular belief, the differences in income between Republicans and Democrats are small. Here’s your evidence.
I mean here it is.
Nazar-
You consider theses small differences?
Among those making less than 100K Democrats won by 12 points. Among those making above 100K Republicans won by 5 points.
That’s huge- and very suggestive of why Republicans feel more economically secure: they are.
Preston, give me the primary reasons you believe people in the “lower” economic status vote democrat?
Preston, you have to consider two things. First of all, 2006 was a bad year for Republicans. Second of all, even among those making over $100,000, Republicans don’t have a clear-cut majority (let’s assume 55% is the clear-cut majority mark). When you got numbers like 51 to 47 going Republican in a year in which that party lost seats, you have to admit that’s pretty close.
Dianne-
The loss of millions of working class jobs that pay a livable wage and the 42 million Americans without healthcare and the gutting of student financial aid aren’t abstractions to many people making less money. These are issues that Democrats talk about and Republicans don’t.
Having recently changed jobs I had to face the prospect of a 3 month gap in my health insurance (luckily I don’t have pre-existing health conditions that chain me to my last insurance plan, and by extension, my last job). Yet that kind of uncertainty is nothing compared to, say, feeling a lump you can’t explain- or pay to have examined.
Nazar-
The point isn’t whether or not the Republicans had a bad year. In 2004 the difference was even greater between those making less than 50K and those making more: a 26 point swing in preference!
Nazar, I think you have just absorbed the working class image that Republicans have worked hard to cultivate in the last 30 years – I was surprised by these numbers too the first time I saw them.
Imagine how you’ll feel when you realize that their bluster about national security is all smoke and mirrors as well.
Preston..the loss of working class jobs is an issue for the majority of WORKING people in this country, republican and democrat. The democrats cater to those who won’t work or can’t work or who are so uneducated they can barely find subsistance jobs…in other words, those with a hand out for some reason or another. That’s the principal reason the “underclass” votes democrat.
As for healthcare, you know I agree with you on this one but then you should love Mitt Romney. He actually did something about healthcare in Mass. If you had lived and worked there, you would have no reason to fear changing jobs. He did it with market based private options, not a one payer socialistic system.
The loss of millions of working class jobs that pay a livable wage and the 42 million Americans
The current unemployment rate is 4.6% — here’s an article from CNNmoney from late last year, where they discuss how the unemployment rate fell to a five year low.
And that there was a net GAIN in new job growth of 92K jobs — and that they paid about $16/hour (very livable wage).
But, I forgot. The economy sucks.
The democrats cater to those who won’t work or can’t work or who are so uneducated they can barely find subsistance jobs…
Dianne- this is completely unsupported by the CNN exit poll data- unless you are saying that people earning up to 100,000 dollars are ‘uneducated’ and ‘won’t work’. And categorizing that lowest income catagory as lazy seems to overlook that a full time (35 hours) job at Wal-Mart would still earning less than 15,000 dollars.
But, I forgot. The economy sucks.
Robbie- I’m not sure what your point is- that people making less money don’t feel more economically insecure? People are lying about their fears of their HMO not covering their sickness?
In any case, it is well documented that that the median income has barely budged in 30 years while at the same time job insecurity has risen. At the same time health care costs and insecurity have risen. At the same time the tax burden has shifted to the working and middle class.
It’s great that the unemployment rate is low now- but the benefits of a growing economy haven’t trickled down to working Americans for a generation. That’s why they vote Democratic.
Before this subject ends, one more comment. I think we have seen some hefty “basic living” costs increase. The price of gas has led to price rises for everything delivered by fuel powered vehicles. It’s more expensive to eat and it’s more expensive to get to work and so on. But, there’s something else at play here and that’s the significant upgrade in lifestyle choices. People today think it’s normal to own a 2,000 sq ft house (cept in NYC), normal to have their kids in multiple expensive activities such as dancing lessons, soccer, etc., normal to go out to eat several times a week instead of cooking at home, you get the picture. In short, our lifestyle choices which were considered extravagant a generation ago are now considered necessities and they’re simply not sustainable anymore.
We’ve been very fortunate in this country. I think we still are, but we need a change of lifestylel diet, one that’s more realistic.
Excellent point, Dianne.
And my wife and I fall precisely into that category. We live in way more house than the two of us need — we have more vehicles than we need, and we do more “leisure” activities and travel than we need to.
But it sure makes life worth the living. However, if economic bad times were to befall us, we have places we could easily cut or do without to get by.
I don’t doubt that many people need to be more disciplined with their money. But it’s another topic altogether from the stagnation of American wages and the declines in economic security over the last generation.