Rudy's last act as Mayor of New York

[Toad]

Todd, we're off the trail into the brush here.

My argument is that a society that votes itself bread and circuses won't survive very long. There's evidence in these meager stats that both "parties" probably have folks that think they can freeload.

Poor folks vote primarily democratic? Rich folks vote primarily Republican? Who would argue against that?

Doesn't matter........ no society can long survive a populace that would rather vote themselves largess than work for it.

Plenty of Republican AND Democratic hogs, rich and poor alike stuff themselves at the public trough. It can't last.

I'm against the "Bush" part of the stimulus plan that dumps huge amounts of money on CEO's that move good-paying US jobs overseas while blaming the American worker for being greedy and then vote themselves bonuses larger than the GNP of Latin American countries for doing so.

Just as I am against the "Daschle" part of the stimulus plan that dumps huge amounts of money on the Federal Government in the form of taxes. Anyone with half a brain realizes that a huge percentage of this money will simply be wasted without doing a single thing for the "common man" while being used to fund "pork" that will insure the reelection of the "hog farmers" in Congress.

Why not let the "common man" stimulate the appropriate areas of the economy by spending his own money for the things he needs/wants?

The map shows the urban areas of NY... which are, I think, Democratic "strongholds" that voted for Hillary. The rural areas of NY which are probably Republican "strongholds" that voted for Lazio. Same was seen nationally in the Presidential race.

Urban areas have higher crime, teen pregnancy and assistance rates. Big suprise right?

Apparently it's immediately "racist" to point that out simultaneously with election results.  

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Toad
My argument is that a society that votes itself bread and circuses won't survive very long. There's evidence in these meager stats that both "parties" probably have folks that think they can freeload.

[/B]

What you've described is a common problem with democratic systems identified by a fellow named Mancur Olsen.  It's known as the paradox of collective action, where the tendency is to freeload if possible, because it yields the same benefits as working hard without the effort.  The solution to this is to implement some form of oversight or punishment to ensure compliance.

We can't punish voters for how they vote, but members of Congress do face public scrutiny and oversight.

Poor folks vote primarily democratic? Rich folks vote primarily Republican? Who would argue against that?

[/B]

Zippatuh, apparently.

Doesn't matter........ no society can long survive a populace that would rather vote themselves largess than work for it.

Plenty of Republican AND Democratic hogs, rich and poor alike stuff themselves at the public trough. It can't last.

[/B]

I don't disagree with you, but I'm not exactly sure how you were attempting to make this argument with your original statistics.  Rates of public assistance, violent crime, and teen pregnancy don't seem at all connected to the notion of systemic largesse or pork barrel politics.

Also keep in mind that our system of government has not suddenly moved toward pork; the incentives were always there.  Read David Mayhew's _Congress: The Electoral Connection_ sometime for more on that, but the basic argument is that members of Congress are single-minded seekers of reelection (and always have been for that matter), and to that end they pursue activities that will get them reelected.  These include advertising, credit claiming, and position taking.  Credit claiming is the really important one, as members of Congress need to "bring home the bacon" to districts to show that they do things for their constituents.  They've done this since the beginning our of Republic, and they're very good at it judging by reelection rates.

Why not let the "common man" stimulate the appropriate areas of the economy by spending his own money for the things he needs/wants?

[/B]

The problem is having money to spend on those appropriate areas.  Those living paycheck-to-paycheck don't have much choice in how they're going to stimulate the economy, and those who don't but fear for their jobs probably aren't going to be spending very much.  One role government fulfills is improving aggregate demand through interest rates and taxes.

This still doesn't really speak to levels of teen pregnancy, violent crime, or public assistance, however.  

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Toad]

What you've described is a common problem with democratic systems identified by a fellow named Mancur Olsen. It's known as the paradox of collective action, where the tendency is to freeload if possible, because it yields the same benefits as working hard without the effort.

Olsen may get the credit but I'm willing to bet that observant folks had this figured out a LONG time before he published.

The solution to this is to implement some form of oversight or punishment to ensure compliance.

Which the US has pretty much failed to do and is unlikely to become more successful at.... IMO, of course.

We can't punish voters for how they vote, but members of Congress do face public scrutiny and oversight.

Sure they do... by the very people they attempt to buy off with "pork barrel politics" on both sides of the aisle. If one has figured out the "paradox of collective action", who is one likely to vote for and keep in office if possible? A reformer?

I don't disagree with you, but I'm not exactly sure how you were attempting to make this argument with your original statistics. Rates of public assistance, violent crime, and teen pregnancy don't seem at all connected to the notion of systemic largesse or pork barrel politics.

They aren't my statistics. The thread was drifting into "is Hill liked or disliked". I found that page that pretty much lays out who voted for her in the NY Senate election and some demographics.

My comment at the end is a Historical observation on the whole US political election process. Seems to me the electorate is moving towards "bread and circuses" rather than what the founders had in mind for the role of the Federal Government.

...members of Congress are single-minded seekers of reelection (and always have been for that matter), and to that end they pursue activities that will get them reelected.

No argument there. The difference that I see is that now we're moving towards an attitude described by the "paradox of collective action" and I believe this is a sea-change in the electorate. I've only taken an interest in politics over the last 30 years but I think even I can see a change occurring since my youth. I'm sure my father sees it even more clearly when comparing it to his youth. It's not the POLS that have changed... most of them have always been scalawags. It's the ELECTORATE that's slipping.. IMO, of course.

The problem is having money to spend on those appropriate areas. Those living paycheck-to-paycheck don't have much choice in how they're going to stimulate the economy,...

So the solution is to raise their taxes, giving the each LESS money to spend between paychecks. Sorry, I don't agree.

and those who don't but fear for their jobs probably aren't going to be spending very much.

So if they don't spend it, they'd be saving it? We KNOW the government is going to be borrowing heavily due to the war/security costs (those smart missiles that we have nearly run out of aren't cheap) so a rise in the personal savings rate would be a BAD thing? Wouldn't that help keep interest rates down?

Also, given a drop in demand... since this group is going to quit spending and save... won't prices fall in response, possibly triggering a buying spree? Sort of like the 0% interest offer did for autos?

Jeez, last time we hit economic difficulties all the pundits were telling us we don't save enough.

One role government fulfills is improving aggregate demand through interest rates and taxes.

OK, aggregate demand is:

"the total level of demand in the economy. It is the total of all desired expenditure at any time by all groups in the economy. The main groups who spend are consumers (consumption), firms (who spend on investment), government (government expenditure) and overseas (exports)."

So you're telling me that HIGHER taxes is going to "improve" the "total level of demand in the economy"?

What's your idea of "improve"  then?  We may have different views about "improvement".

[Zippatuh]

Hmmmm, do I agree or disagree with income dictates party affiliation?  Interesting question.  I see that links have been provided to show that conclusively the amount of income an individual makes will indeed dictate how they vote.  I pondered the idea of searching state specific examples, as I am more familiar with Missouri then NY or the entire nation.  I unfortunately do not have the time so here are some educated guesses and thoughts.

I would make the suggestion that citizens living in metropolitan/urban areas have a higher income on average than that of the rural communities.  I say this due to the corporate structure, mass production, and generally an abundance of middle income job prospects.  You don’t have to be a computer programmer; the black jack dealers at the boats do just fine.  As well as the Ford plant, cold storage facility, and whatever warehouse jobs there are out there.

This to me would suggest that in all actuality the voting would be reversed.  Republicans voting in lager populations and democrats in smaller less financially stable areas.  This doesn’t seem to be the case.  Now here is my point.  Taking party affiliation out of it.  Why is there such a difference between voting depending on the location of your house?

This tells me that two people making 30K a year but one in the sticks and the other surrounded by concrete will have drastically different views about the way government should be run.  Why?  Different values, morals, upbringing?  What appears to be happening to me is that our country is being steered by its metropolitan areas.  I’m not real sure how good that can be.

Zippatuh

[Zigrat]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poor folks vote primarily democratic? Rich folks vote primarily Republican? Who would argue against that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



i am gonna disagree with that strongly. most republicans i know are the middle class -- ie those who make 30 to 80 thousand dollars a year. most of the rich people i know are all democrats because they are rich anyways and taxes dont matter so much to them  and they like to feel good and look good in front of their liberal buddies so they are all democrats. also i would say most people who are really freaking poor are democrats ebcause they want the handouts. but the real heart of the republican party is in the middle class, where you make too much to get free stuff from the government, but its enough where they rob you of 35% each year.

hey and im not a staunch republican -- i really dont like their views on conservation and the environment. but i am very against ANY form of government assistance program. it should all come from the community and via VOLUNTARY donations spurred on via tax incentives.

why should i have to pay taxes so the person living next door can get a net refund? if i want to give them something thats great but it should not be mandated by the federal government. you know what people did before welfare? they either starved or got a job. a growling belly is a good incentive to get off your bellybutton and go do something.

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Zigrat
i am gonna disagree with that strongly. most republicans i know are the middle class -- ie those who make 30 to 80 thousand dollars a year. most of the rich people i know are all democrats because they are rich anyways and taxes dont matter so much to them  and they like to feel good and look good in front of their liberal buddies so they are all democrats. also i would say most people who are really freaking poor are democrats ebcause they want the handouts. but the real heart of the republican party is in the middle class, where you make too much to get free stuff from the government, but its enough where they rob you of 35% each year.

[/B]

Demographics just don't back this up.  Your own personal experience does not coincide with what we know from over 50+ years of polling.  Just to test the hypothesis, I grabbed the cumulative NES dataset from 1948 to 2000, which pools over 48,000 respondents together, and performed a simple statistical analysis of the relationship between income and party affiliation.  I did this in two different ways just in case a pure linear approach misstated the functional form of the relationship -- that is, it's possible that there's a linear relationship between income and partisanship up until certain income levels, at which point the relationship reverses itself (as you've suggested).  In the first case, I just run a simple bivariate linear regression with PARTY ID as the dependent variable and INCOME as the independent variable.  In the second case, I create a series of dummy variables (1 if true, 0 if not) for each income level except the lowest for INCOME... this will show us if there's a nonlinear relationship of the type you've suggested.

FYI, the National Election Studies measures PARTY ID on a 7-point scale scored as Strong Democrat, Weak Democrat, Independent-Democrat, Independent-Independent, Independent-Republican, Weak Republican, and Strong Republican.  NES measures INCOME on a 5-point scale based on income percentiles, which allows us reliably compare scores from 1948 with scores from 2000.

Here are the results:

Model 1:

Constant  = 2.873 (standard error = 0.028, p < 0.01)
INCOME = .246 (standard error = 0.009, p < 0.01)

Model 2:

Constant = 3.244 (standard error = 0.025, p < 0.01)
INCOME 2nd % = 7.357E-02 (st. error = 0.036, p < 0.05)
INCOME 3rd % = .297 (st. error = 0.031, p < 0.01)
INCOME 4th % = .567 (st. error = 0.032, p < 0.01)
INCOME 5th % = 1.298 (st. error = 0.051, p < 0.01)

Both models tell us the same thing pretty much.  In the first case, the baseline PARTY ID score is 2.873 (close to Independent-Democrat), and each successive income level, on average, increases one's partisanship by .246 points.

The second model shows us the same thing by different means.  The first income percentile averages a PARTY ID score of 3.244 -- somewhere between Independent-Democrat and Independent-Independent.  Each successive level of income nearly doubles the average partisanship score.  Compared to the lowest income levels, those in the highest income percentile consider themselves, on average, to be somewhere between Independent-Independent and Independent-Republican.

Stats geeks feel free to correct any inaccuracies.

why should i have to pay taxes so the person living next door can get a net refund? if i want to give them something thats great but it should not be mandated by the federal government. you know what people did before welfare? they either starved or got a job. a growling belly is a good incentive to get off your bellybutton and go do something.

That's a gross oversimplification of the way these things work.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Zigrat]

well stats dont lie and it seems you are right, the wealthier you are the more conservative you are. it would be nice to see age taken out of the relationship though. older people tend to be more conservative, and they also tend to make more money. from the statistics i have taken, you cannot draw a clear conclusion because there are other factors that you have not regressed against.  to be truly fair, you would have to perform the study with income as the only independent variable and fix all other variables, such as the respondants sex, profession, ethnicity, and coutless other variables.

as for the gross simplification, i really dont believe you. people live the lifestyle they live in for two reasons.. 1) its how they were brought up, which is unfortunate. 2) that lifestyle is made possible by the social programs of the us government.

my father came to america 40 years ago and built his way from not knowing any english  or any people living in the country he moved to all teh way up to where he is now, where he owns his own business, drives a nice car, and raised 4 great kids. he is 62 years old and he still works 70 hour weeks, because he has to. why? you cant find good help. he is doing well now, but you know what his first job was when he came to america? he was a janitor. then worked in a baseball factory. then he worked construction. and finally he opened up his butcher store.

now he makes good money, and you know how much education he has? 4th grade.  to succeed in america, you don;t need an education even, though it certainly does help. all you need is ambition and drive. if people are lacking in those areas, let em fall by the wayside. its not those types who made america the nation it is today.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Zigrat
well stats dont  

Reminds me of a story:

A company was interviewing for a new accountant. The first interviewee is asked; what is 2+2? The interviewee begins writing on the provided chalk board complex equations that uneqivically prove that 2+2=4. Thanks, they say, we'll let ya know.

The second interviewee is asked the same question; what is 2+2? The interviewee breaks out his slide rule and calculator. Through complex calculations proves that 2+2=4. Thanks, they say, we'll let ya know.

The third interviewee is again asked the question, what is 2+2? The interviewee scans the room and quielty says; how much do ya want it to be? You're hired!

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Zigrat
well stats dont lie and it seems you are right, the wealthier you are the more conservative you are.

[/B]

Well, it's not a measure of ideology, it's only a measure of partisanship.  Sociology and political science make a distinction between how ideological one is and how partisan one is -- after all, Southern Democrats until just recently tended to be extremely conservative.  African-American males also tend to be very conservative ideologically, though African-Americans in general tend to vote Democratic.

it would be nice to see age taken out of the relationship though. older people tend to be more conservative, and they also tend to make more money. from the statistics i have taken, you cannot draw a clear conclusion because there are other factors that you have not regressed against.  to be truly fair, you would have to perform the study with income as the only independent variable and fix all other variables, such as the respondants sex, profession, ethnicity, and coutless other variables.

[/B]

All of these other variables contribute in some form to partisanship, but it's doubtful that including them would significantly reduce the impact of income.  Think of the theoretical implications of some of the stuff you're arguing -- how would sex or ethnicity covary with income?  Why should their inclusion or exclusion from the regression equation in any way impact upon the relationship between income and partisanship?  

There are simple ways of testing the things you've suggested.  NES has hundreds of variables, and age, gender, ethnicity, and the like are all included.  I just reran my first model adding the variables GENDER (a dummy that is 1 if female, 0 if male) and AGE (coded into various categories by age ranges, ranging from 17-24 up to 85+).  Here are the new results when controlling for these variables:

Constant = 2.743 (standard error = 0.047, p < 0.01)
INCOME = .253 (standard error = 0.009, p < 0.01)
AGE = 3.196E-03 (standard error = 0.026, p < 0.01)
GENDER = -5.75E-02 (standard error = -0.014, p <0.01)

All variables are statistically significant predictors of partisanship.  With the new variables in our model, income actually increases its impact on partisanship very slightly.  Age has a positive and miniscule impact on partisanship -- as you advance through age groups, people do tend to become more Republican, but the effect is extremely small.  Women also tend, on average, to consider themselves more Democratic than males (2.743 for males, about 2.69 for females on the PARTY ID scale), though again this effect is minor.

In other words, even if you control for things that theoretically could confound income, income continues to be a strong predictor of partisanship.

as for the gross simplification, i really dont believe you. people live the lifestyle they live in for two reasons.. 1) its how they were brought up, which is unfortunate. 2) that lifestyle is made possible by the social programs of the us government.

[/B]

So prior to social programs for the poor, the only thing keeping people poor was the way they were brought up?  I don't suppose aptitude, access, opportunity, luck, or any of a myriad of things mattered then.  Lyndon Johnson once remarked, upon driving through the Texas countryside while observing workers in the field, that the only difference between him and them was being in the right places at the right times.

now he makes good money, and you know how much education he has? 4th grade.  to succeed in america, you don;t need an education even, though it certainly does help. all you need is ambition and drive. if people are lacking in those areas, let em fall by the wayside. its not those types who made america the nation it is today.

I stated that you made a gross oversimplification because you're combining all forms of public assistance together.  Many types of public assistance, such as student loans or school vouchers, are meant to provide opportunities to driven, ambitious individuals who have no outlet for these strengths.  That they even exist suggests that being driven alone isn't always enough -- you can't be a lawyer or a medical doctor on a 4th grade education no matter how much you'd like to be one.

So think outside the box of "welfare queens," and look at the bigger picture.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by AKIron
The third interviewee is again asked the question, what is 2+2? The interviewee scans the room and quielty says; how much do ya want it to be? You're hired!

If you see some error in my statistical analysis, by all means point it out to me.  If you think that I'm in some way "cooking" a 48,000 respondent dataset to back up what I'm saying, come right out and say it.

The fact is that we may very accurately analyze data using scientific methods.  Where statistics and methodology get a bad name is when inappropriate methods are applied to data to achieve a desired outcome.  When correct methodology is applied to good data, however, we may have a high level of confidence in the validity and reliability of the results.

-- Todd/Leviathn