Rudy's last act as Mayor of New York

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So at the end of Hillarys term you expect these figures to eaven out?  

[/B]

If you look at the pattern of support for Hillary Clinton over time, the even split in support actually came after lower support (39%) a couple of months earlier.  Unless that's within the margin of error of the poll, her support numbers are actually increasing over time.

It's very difficult to tell if those numbers will go up or down by the end of her term.  Job-wise, she's benefitting from a resurgence in public approval of Congress.  The state of the economy at the end of her term will also benefit or hurt her reelection chances.  However, barring her doing something phenomenally stupid, I don't suspect that these numbers will change dramatically.

All I saw in Hitlerys campaign were the usual we fix all promises of left leaning politicans.

Real leaders like, Rudy, actually do things to fix problems.

All of which is fine and good, but it has nothing to do with public opinion or the misperception of a general hatred toward Clinton as claimed in this thread.  I think there is a hatred of Clinton within a certain partisan or ideological segment of this country, but polls show that this dislike does not manifest itself among all Americans.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Kieran]

All nice and stuff, DMF, but she has shown herself to be without scruples. However effective she may be as a result has no bearing on how I feel about her and her ilk.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Kieran
All nice and stuff, DMF, but she has shown herself to be without scruples. However effective she may be as a result has no bearing on how I feel about her and her ilk.

There are many that feel as you do Kieran, what I take offense to, is posting this:

"Swoop, you are gazing upon the most disliked woman in all of American (if not world) politics. ".

That is not true.....some dislike her, some hate her, some feel she is a strong woman who mad the mistake of being a strong woman. Your views do not constitute even the majority of Americans. Why couch them as such?

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Kieran
All nice and stuff, DMF, but she has shown herself to be without scruples. However effective she may be as a result has no bearing on how I feel about her and her ilk.

I'm not writing to how you or anyone else on this forum feels about Hillary, Kieren.  What I am writing to is this mistaken notion that a personal dislike for Hillary Clinton somehow equates to a universal dislike for her.  Public opinion polls show that this is simply not the case.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Toad]

I'm sure those of you familiar with my example realize that only the Roman Citizens could vote. Roman citizenship was pretty well restricted to Romans only, with some exceptions. So, in the example, racism obviously had no role.

The "moral of the story" is that it is most likely simply human nature to take "something for nothing". Racism doesn't figure into it at all (but I'm not surprised that "racism" was the first claim to be made )

When the societal view shifts... as it did in the Roman Empire... to the view that voting yourself "bread and circuses" is an acceptable and indeed desirable goal, then sooner or later the non-workers inevitably outnumber the workers. This creates a situation that cannot last.

[Dead Man Flying]

So the thread begins with Hillary Clinton and now turns to an argument about the unsustainable nature of American democracy because people vote for "bread and circuses?"

I don't see it, sorry.  The reason lower class individuals (large numbers of which are located in New York City) tend to vote Democratic is that Democrats favor policies that benefit and appeal to them... the exact same reason that upper class individuals tend to vote for Republicans.

Instead of seeing this in the classicly stupid "more government" and "less government" debate, think of it in terms of the Philip's Curve of inflation vs. unemployment.   Lower class individuals favor fiscal policies that decrease unemployment at the expense of inflation; they tend to live paycheck to paycheck, so having a job outweighs how much their money will be worth in ten years.  Upper class individuals favor fiscal policies that reduce inflation at the expense of unemployment; the sorts of jobs possessed by upper class individuals typically aren't affected by increasing unemployment.  However, they face the possibility that their long term life savings will substantially devalue over time due to inflation.

Democrats and Republicans favor different fiscal policies.  Can you guess which party supports which policy?  Why should it be any surprise then that urban, lower class voters support policies that benefit or appeal to them?

Now please take down the "bread and circuses" straw man you've built up.  It doesn't belong here.  

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Gunthr]

I think the connection between the street populas in ancient Rome and today's population centers is obvious. I believe the phrase "being on the dole" even has latin roots.

If you've ever wondered why a higher proportion of welfare recipients vote Democratic, here is your answer. If you relied on welfare, would'nt you vote for the politician who promises continued or increased welfare?

Sure, there are exceptions, but generally, its just human nature. I think that was a good observation, Toad.  

[miko2d]

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
So the thread begins with Hillary Clinton and now turns to an argument about the unsustainable nature of American democracy because people vote for "bread and circuses?"

 That is called "positive feedback". At best system working in positive feedback mode will stabilise some state extrememy far from optimal - when it hits some external restraint or it runs out of resources. In most cases such systems just break to pieces.

 The way it will happen in US is the "lower class individuals" voting for policies that appeal to them in the short term disrupt the foundation of our economy and reduce it's competitivness and productivity.

 If you try decrease unemployment by making it hard for companies (rich) people to fire employees, it will greatly and negatively affect their ability to do business. So eventually teh employment will be lower even while "protected".
 Same with inflation - high inflation makes the country unattractive for investments which results in outflow of jobs and wealth.

 The "bread and circuses" comparison is not a straw man but very apt here - besides food and entertainment romans voted the means to ensure the suppy of them those B&S.
 Which ment constant warfare and subjugation of other countries for purposes of extortion. At some point their ability to hold the empire's provinces and extended borders exceeded their means and romans were forced to accept military services of barbarian chiefs and offer them citizenship - that is when the whole system collapsed.

 Rich men have longer horizons then poor men and are more actively interested in long-term prosperity of the country even though the collapse would be more harmfull to poor men - losing money is much better then death of starvation. That was the reason why countries throughout the history attached some property requitement to citizenship franchise or voting rights.

 miko

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Toad
I'm sure those of you familiar with my example realize that only the Roman Citizens could vote. Roman citizenship was pretty well restricted to Romans only, with some exceptions. So, in the example, racism obviously had no role.

The "moral of the story" is that it is most likely simply human nature to take "something for nothing". Racism doesn't figure into it at all (but I'm not surprised that "racism" was the first claim to be made )

When the societal view shifts... as it did in the Roman Empire... to the view that voting yourself "bread and circuses" is an acceptable and indeed desirable goal, then sooner or later the non-workers inevitably outnumber the workers. This creates a situation that cannot last.

Here is why I think your post was racist....even if you are not:

but Crime Rate, Public Assistance Rate, Teen Pregnancy Rate?
The Roman Empire lasted until the plebeians learned they could vote themselves "bread and circuses" and do no honest work themselves.  

We were discussing the inner city and their support for Hillary in the election. Is there any doubt that "Plebian" refered to those inner city people? Or at least to the supporters of Hillary or her politics? The historical meaning of Plebian is kind of irrelevant when taken in the context of your example.

" The "moral of the story" is that it is most likely simply human nature to take "something for nothing". Racism doesn't figure into it at all (but I'm not surprised that "racism" was the first claim to be made  ) "

But the people in the suburbs or country don't fall into your "human nature" wanting something for nothing?  What would be the difference? Aren't they all people? Should we look at the racial demographics for the 2 candidates and apply those numbers to your point? Of course it would look racist.

[Zippatuh]

So what?  Anyone who lives in a metropolitan area are enlightened individuals while the rural folks are just racist rednecks?  I don’t see how race was drawn into this other than by you stating it.

As far as jobs and living paycheck to paycheck.  My mothers’ family is from a small town in Shanon county Missouri where there are three places to work.  Walmart, where there is a waiting list for the ones who work there to retire and you have to drive quite a distance to get there.  The hat factory, which by the way goes in and out of business as it is easier and cheaper to make ball caps over seas.  And working the tourists at the river, which is obviously seasonal at best.

The county votes republican.  Who’d a thunk.

Zippatuh

[midnight Target]

I must be slipping......I thought it was very clear. Ahhh well.

One more try....

Toad was saying that it is human nature to "take something for nothing".

Based upon the thread, I assume that Toad leans more to the right and was commenting on Hillary's support in the inner city and metropolitan areas.

Consequently it looks very much like the inner city/metropolitan people are the ones Toad ment wanted "something for nothing" and were being refered to as "Plebians" in his post.

So......the "Plebians" are inner city types and want "something for nothing" while good upstanding (white?) republicans live in the country and do not want "something for nothing".

I hope this helps.

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by miko2d
The way it will happen in US is the "lower class individuals" voting for policies that appeal to them in the short term disrupt the foundation of our economy and reduce it's competitivness and productivity.

[/B]

Nonsense.  If you've ever studied economics or the Philip's Curve, you'll find that there is an optimal equilibrium point between inflation and unemployment.  The more you push in one direction, the more you receive diminishing returns while exaggerating the impact on the other.  So you can damn near eliminate inflation, but you'll do it a massive cost to unemployment, and vice-versa.  Responsible fiscal policies balance the two.  Political debate centers over just where that optimal equilibrium point happens to be.

Edit:  It occured to me that I should probably explain the Philips Curve better.  Its began as an observation about the apparent statistical tradeoff between unemployment and inflation.  If we witness an increase in aggregate demand in an economy with a fixed supply, price levels increase (inflation).  Companies scramble to meet this increased demand by increasing their production capacity; they do so by hiring new employees (decreased unemployment).  If, on the other hand, aggregate demand decreases with a fixed supply, price levels decrease (deflation).  Companies now overstock goods and must reduce any unneeded personnel (increasing unemployment).

This gets more complicated with things like short-term and long-term Philips Curves, but I hope you get the idea.  It's not so much, then, that Democrats favor "job protection" as it is that they favor policies meant to increase aggregate demand (i.e. lower class payroll tax breaks).  Republicans tend to favor policies that either reduce aggregate demand or increase aggregate supply (hence "supply-side economics" from the Reagan era) through things such as corporate tax relief.

Try not to think of it terms of "long term" or "short term" here.  Zero percent inflation in the long term at the cost of 50% of the jobs in the American economy is hardly forward thinking.

If you try decrease unemployment by making it hard for companies (rich) people to fire employees, it will greatly and negatively affect their ability to do business. So eventually teh employment will be lower even while "protected".
 Same with inflation - high inflation makes the country unattractive for investments which results in outflow of jobs and wealth.

[/B]

Economic history rarely agrees with your assertion that high unemployment and high inflation go hand in hand.  Inflation may actually be the sign of a strong economy with very high growth and very low unemployment.  The Federal Reserve's efforts to slow down the growth rate of the economy (via interest rate increases) throughout the 1990s was also an effort to stem inflation during a robust period of growth and high employment.  About the only time period I can think of that witnessed both high unemployment and high inflation would be the "stagflation" era of the 1970s.

The "bread and circuses" comparison is not a straw man but very apt here - besides food and entertainment romans voted the means to ensure the suppy of them those B&S.
 Which ment constant warfare and subjugation of other countries for purposes of extortion. At some point their ability to hold the empire's provinces and extended borders exceeded their means and romans were forced to accept military services of barbarian chiefs and offer them citizenship - that is when the whole system collapsed.

[/B]

Did you know that welfare constitutes less than 1% of the federal budget?  The vast majority of discretionary spending goes toward defense, and the vast majority of non-discretionary spending goes toward Social Security (and to a much lesser extent, Medicaid/Medicare).  It's possible that America is moving toward a point where its needs exceed its means, but it probably won't be due to assistance to lower class families.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Zippatuh
The county votes republican.  Who’d a thunk.
 

Obviously there will always be cases like the one you've cited, but your example doesn't disprove the general argument.  I'd be happy to provide links to the National Election Studies website at the University of Michigan for you.  Their excellent work since the 1950s routinely shows a strong relationship between income and party affiliation among voters.

Here's the link:  http://www.umich.edu/~nes/

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Raubvogel]

Just for the record....I think she's a nasty scruple-less skank who gets votes/approval by telling the easily persuaded what they want to hear; when in reality she could give a toejam as long as they further her career.

Ok, back to your regularly scheduled thread.

[Toad]

Originally posted by midnight Target


We were discussing the inner city and their support for Hillary in the election. Is there any doubt that "Plebian" refered to those inner city people? Or at least to the supporters of Hillary or her politics? The historical meaning of Plebian is kind of irrelevant when taken in the context of your example.

"Plebeian" is, of course, used in its strictly historical sense because this is obviously a purely historical observation. The Roman Empire did begin to fail when the plebeians (Etymology: Latin 'plebeius' of the common people, from 'plebs' common people) began to realize that it was easier vote themselves the things they wanted instead of working for them. Race was essentially a non-issue in the enfranchised section of that society.

Now, are there people in US society that have reached the same conclusion? Of course there are. Are some of them in the cities? Certainly. Are some of them in the rural areas? Certainly.

Is that a racist observation? Only to some people. Some see racism everywhere. Some see a claim or "racism" as the card that "trumps" all other arguments, removing the need for factual discussion.

But the people in the suburbs or country don't fall into your "human nature" wanting something for nothing?

 

Check those stats again. "Households receiving public assistance: Clinton 12.8% Lazio 5.9%" Quite obviously, there are some in the rural (Lazio) counties that have figured it out as well.

I pause here to note that I am most certainly in support of helping people who actually need help. There ARE folks that need financial assistance and I am more than happy to contribute.

At the same time, I'm realist enough to know that there are some who are quite content to freeload. I personally believe this segment is growing pretty fast.

The original observation stands: historically, a succesful society destroyed itself when the "common man" found he could vote himself the things he desired instead of working for them.

I believe ANY society that follows that path will suffer pretty much the same fate.

Now if you want to make that into a "racist" statement... that would be the product of your mind, not mine.