Again, your stance is just built on naivety. And your response to my post is nonsensical. Put that right
To save yourself embarrassment, go look up the definition of median. Relatively, yes! But even if no, it's more a result of voter apathy and pulling the lever for your party and not the candidate. So? Still doesn't support your outrageous claim.
Median is different than average. 14% is significant? My claim is you are missing a signifcant reason why the voter doesn't effect policy. If you want to ignore it, thats fine.
Are you kidding? Politicians vote to stay in office. When the voters have little effect, politicians look to please those that do, the special interests that fund the "campaign" contributions, and the PACs that fund the ad campaigns.
And the median voter is who elects them. So, in other words you'd have to assume politicians are irrational to arrive at the conclusion they don't enact the policies demanded by the median voter. They clearly are not, otherwise they wouldn't pander as they do.
Is the voter given a choice of politicians that will vote in line with the median voter? No, the voters are given what the party provides. Voter contributions are not concentrated, and because they rarely change parties, at worst, they don't contribute. Special interest contributions are focused, and they will change parties if they get a better deal. The parties back politicians that focus their effort on making the special interests happy. Read the bills your politicans voter for (not just the title - those are apple pie and motherhood, that actual text of the bill). Democrats have been saying the rich need to pay their fair share, yet 56% of the House Democrats voted in favor of extending the Bush tax cuts. A no vote would have upset many special interests. Even Obamacare did nothing to lower costs because those costs fund a lot of special interest contributions.
Yes it is all the middle classes fault. They have not defended themselves. They have not worked hard enough. They have lost and have no self respect. What losers they are. Thank you for pointing this out, I am sure that since they are the largest voting block they will see the sense in voting for anyone better than they are. I mean, how can they really expect to do anything meaningful when they have failed so abjectly? LOSERS!!!!!
Rah rah rah! This may be a strange request, being increasingly unusual on this forum, but fancy actually responding to the points made within the quote?
Good point. Sorry. Don't actually know what the hell he was saying, and so I have no real right to respond. Was he saying the middle class caused the problems or that they supported the people who caused the problems or what? There are so many conservatives on this forum that I just assumed that it was an attack on those less affluent than the top 10% in the US. You need to understand that in the US everyone who is not a top earner is basically a complete loser as far as the conservatives are concerned. And you are practically satanic if you need government assistance. C'est la vie....
That almost sounds like a plea for European style representational parliament. I digress, the largest block of voters may or may not have a huge say in which politicians end up on the ballot, but it's quite a stretch to suggest that when the plurality of a population demands a policy that it doesn't get pushed through. The thing politicians fear most is losing their job/power, so even if it means enacting stupid policies that's what they'll do. But now we're back to the OP, where the median voter demands reduced spending on public goods, often to their own detriment. Last election they were. Or, more often than not, contribute to both so no matter who wins... they do. You're not going to get me to downplay the influence of special interests, but they aren't voters and politicians can campaign with their dollars but they aren't the ultimate decision makers.
Has spending on "the public good" accomplished it's goal? Are schools better, poverty reduced, health care have stopped rising.
Well then that's proof positive isn't it? You've just made the OP's point. Our transportation, schools, HC all of it is not up to where it should be and yet all we hear from demands for spending cuts...
Not spending enough - maybe on interstate highways. On schools and healthcare, we are spending far more now than in the past, with worse outcome. The problem isn't money, it is the goals being set are wrong. How much have we spent on TSA, in direct costs, and in opportunity costs, compared to how many terror attacks have they stopped. How many have passengers stopped? The healthcare bill did nothing to contain costs, even though that was a major claim. In the end, it will provided care for about 10M, that could have been added to Medicaid for far less.
Did the left, while totally in control, implement publich health care? Did they copy any health care system in the civilized world that costs half what US health care costs? The health care industry pays too much into the politicians & regulators pockets. Cost cutting would have killed to golden goose.
"The Left"? Spare me your inane party politics. The point is simple: health care shows a clear case of underinvestment as a public good.
You expect to understand economics if you ignorance politics? How cute. Not underinvestment in a public good, redirection of that payment by bastardizing tribal ethics by the left for personal gain. Goverment is greed, pure and simple, without the checks and balances of the free market. Of course you will rant about economic content, and how I have it all wrong - tell someone that cares what you think.
A silly reply. I haven't ignored political economy. I've laughed at your reference to party politics. This is low brow rant. The problem is that you don't understand what a public good entails. You use low powered reference to influence costs in order to have a blinkered view of the importance of the median voter in delivering a non-optimal result You just use dogma to worship invalidity. Its a boring trait. I'm hoping Anikdote will be able to break you free from the shackles. I won't put money on it though
I expected you would, it just shows your ignorance . The simple explanation how public goods are co-opted is called the bootlegger and Baptist, another explanation how far it can be carried is described by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita. A direct correlation between the voter and the law - what a stretch. The voter picks from a very limited offering, who write legislation, that is converted to law by unelected functionaries, implemented by yet another set of unelected functionaries. I am happy to see you recognized that Anikdote has superior economic understanding and communication skill.
You really think your agrrogance is going to dismiss me? ROTFL You keep referring to party, I have only referred to the left. The Republican's turned left with the passage of the Medicare perscription coverage, but like the Democrate, they did nothing to reduce cost. Read a little Bruce Bueno de Mesquita's "The Logic of Political Survival" to understand the linkage between government, the economy, and the public good.
Arrogance? No, just a minor shake of the head as I have to put up with someone rambling on about party politics in order to avoid sound political economic comment. Same ole, same ole
Again with the party politics. You can't answer the question because it is too complicated, yet know what will fix the worlds ills. What a piece of work.
There's nothing complicated about party politics. You brought it up as you do not understand the political economy.
