Chris Bowers notes that 59 percent of Democrats believe that John Edwards is proposing to withdraw all US forces from Iraq within nine months. 71 percent believe that Barack Obama is proposing to do this. And 76 (!) percent believe Hillary Clinton is proposing to do so. Needless to say, none of them are, in fact, proposing anything of the sort -- though I wish they would.
« Why Tax Cuts | Main | Quote of the Day »
Our Ignorant Electorate
06 Sep 2007 05:22 pm
Comments (19)
Don't you find endless contempt for your fellow citizens rather wearing? Is it really their fault that the Democratic candidates weasel and hedge so much that no one is quite sure what any of them is proposing?
"weasel and hedge" = polysyllables
That's one of the most frustrating things about the Hillary campaign: she receives support because she's been branded as a liberal, though she's clearly far to the right of any other serious candidate.
Matt, lead us ignorant.
And free us from all those economic experts who support supply side economics. They might dominate the economics departments of top institutions, but they are crackpots.
"And free us from all those economic experts who support supply side economics. They might dominate the economics departments of top institutions, but they are crackpots."
If they dominated the top institutions, they wouldn't have to be stuck in AEI-type ghettos. Even conservative economists in most places tend to find supply-siders a joke and tend to emphasize that you need to cut spending as well if cutting taxes is going to have a beneficial effect.
Is it really their fault that the Democratic candidates weasel and hedge so much that no one is quite sure what any of them is proposing?
Nope.
There are, of course, two Democratic candidates who are actually proposing what Matthew wishes the top 3 would propose, but they're crazy so they don't count.
reality man, Matt basically defines supply siders as those who believe tax cuts pay for themselves in the short term.
that's a limited and misleading definition of supply side economics.
supply siders seek medium to longterm growth by creating policies which maximize savings. most economist agree with that type of thinking.
One more time, supply-side guru Bruce Bartlett:
Today, supply-side economics has become associated with an obsession for cutting taxes under any and all circumstances. No longer do its advocates in Congress and elsewhere confine themselves to cutting marginal tax rates — the tax on each additional dollar earned — as the original supply-siders did. Rather, they support even the most gimmicky, economically dubious tax cuts with the same intensity....
This is a simplification of what supply-side economics was all about, and it threatens to undermine the enormous gains that have been made in economic theory and policy over the last 30 years. Perhaps the best way of preventing that from happening is to kill the phrase “supply-side economics” and give it a decent burial.
If you want to reclaim the concept of supply-side economics as a sound economic theory, your argument is not with Matt Yglesias, but with the Republican politicians who have demagogued the concept far beyond any connection with reality. Matt is simply reporting what they say.
Looking at the 4 options presented in the poll, the correct answer doesn't include the word withdraw. It focuses on the "substantial" number of troops who would remain, and what they would be doing differently. So I don't think it's that surprising so many people thought the withdrawal option more likely.
This is simply the 'ideological' (actually media-characteriological)equivalent of name recognition.
J. Medidan Poll-Respondent, having been told repeatedly that Sen. Clinton, apart from being married to the second coming of Proudhon, is a wicked liberal, in the Maine, and naturaliter sense of the word, consequentially must have the most 'extreme' position on this, or any, question.
I would be shocked if you didn't find this artifact replicated on every salient issue.
"....your argument is not with Matt Yglesias, but with the Republican politicians who have demagogued the concept far beyond any connection with reality."
I agree with you to a point. Republican politicians should not misrepresent supply side economics by suggesting tax cuts automatically bring higher revenue.
But Yglesias and his cohorts referring to supply side economist as "crackpots" is unfair.
Just because a politician misrepresents a school thought gives Yglesias no right to label economist of that school as crackpots. Conservative economist might dominate the field. this might be harmful. but lets not mudsling.
And Yglesias' table showing tax revenue for 2 YEARS does not shutdown the case of real supply side theorist. Tax cuts bring benefits in the longterm. These benefits are difficult to capture in stats, but which I strongly believe are important.
Ah, yes, the non-statistical benefits of tax cuts.
"...none of them are, in fact, proposing anything of the sort -- though I wish they would."
It would seem that any of them could make exactly that proposal with zero penalty, since so many already think that's what they stand for.
Just goes to show that no one's paying any attention yet, at least outside the beltway and Blogistan. Once December rolls around these numbers should come back to Earth, and the race will surely shake up.
the Hillary campaign: she receives support because she's been branded as a liberal, though she's clearly far to the right of any other serious candidate.
I take it you don't think the Republicans are "serious candidates" . . .
It would seem that any of them could make exactly that proposal with zero penalty, since so many already think that's what they stand for.
Concorde Politics. In the early 1980s, British Airways was charging about £6000 a seat for Concorde tickets, and just about breaking even. Then the marketing department had a small brainwave and did a survey of Concorde passengers, asking "How much did you pay for your seat?" Answer: an average of £12,000. Very few of them were paying their own way, and those who were basically were so rich that they couldn't remember how much they'd paid, any more than you or I remember exactly how much a chocolate bar costs.
What did BA do? They doubled the ticket prices, and Concorde started making serious money.
Ending the occupation of Iraq is "something like" withdrawing all military forces ... and while Senators Obama and Clinton are arguing for a continued occupation, the policies of many of the other candidates really do call for ending the occupation of Iraq.
This is bizarre. As no presidential candidate will become president until 16 1/2 months from now, unless Bush has an unbelievable change of heart, substantial withdrawal from Iraq will not occur for at least 20 months - more likely 2-3 years. In other words, candidate A could promise to be out of Irag by mid 2009 and candidate B could say by the end of 2010 but in either case it seems ridiculous to make a commitment so far into the future.
Comments closed September 20, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Neither is Bill Richardson, who you and Bowers continually tout as the model for a withdrawal plan from Iraq.
Posted by Clark | September 6, 2007 5:39 PM