To Brian Lehrer...I'm Dr. Marty Cantor..the person referenced by Bill from New Rochelle..I'd welcome the opportunity to be a guest on your show..my bio is on www.martincantor.com best Marty Cantor

It doesn't really matter what any of us think. What matters in the end is what our creditors, the ratings agencies and the bond vigilantes think. Try to legislate them away.

RE: "Poor whites" not voting their self-interest. So I guess they should get on the "give me their stuff" bandwagon. Maybe they want to keep what is theirs. Maybe they don't want that which is not theirs to be given to them. Maybe they're ignorant as you believe. I don't think it is the latter. It is not about race. As you know, there is pushback against public employee unions - public employees are all races, there is pushback against bank and car company bailouts. Please read the Constitution and look for the right to redistribute (and this is not "general welfare").

All the political in fighting between the parties boils down to who controls the money in Washington. The party that controls the spending has the power of the purse and funds the programs that they decide. The determining factor is not who the Presidentis but which party controls the legislative branches of government.

Appreciate the analysis of "ethnocentrism", but I think the term is too general. The connection drawn between monetary wealth and Conservatism/Republicanism doesn't explain the large poor white Republican base.

The reason this is about race is because the vast majority of the recipients of food stamps and welfare are white. Yet the fallacy of the narrative is that wealthy whites are voting Republican because they're tired of paying for lazy immigrants and blacks. All statistical evidence indicates this is pure fiction. However, this narrative causes poor uneducated whites to vote against their best interests. The most logical conclusion as to why this would happen is racism. Of course it's fueled by unsubstantiated accusations of "otherness" against the current president.

Additionally, any 20 minute discussion about changing demographics of the electorate that doesn't touch on the voter suppression effort in 20 some odd states is barely valid. GOP state legislatures are passing legislation under the guise of voter fraud prevention when it fact it's an obvious effort to disenfranchise the elderly, people of color, students, and the poor. Brian, I think the world of you. But this was the 800 pound gorilla in the room and you ignored it. I expect much better from you.

An argument for less federal spending - allow states to keep what is theirs. Lower federal taxes, and states (voters) can decide individually the levels of taxes that are appropriate.

It is truly iomportant to know who is REALLY on welfare.

Fact is, the "RED STATES" are set up to swallow the lion's share of federal spending, be it log-roling; seniority; or plain old greed; those who complain most are the biggest offenders.

We saw this with Senator Pat Moynahan's study "The Federal Budget and The States"

And we see the modern version in Professer Dr. Cantor's modern study:

http://martincantor.com/files/FederalbudgetAndStatesShortForm.pdf

Those who point fingers are the most deluded.
Professor Martin Canter should be a guest on the show.

It never ceases to amaze me. Not everything is about race. Why are people called greedy if they want to keep their own earnings and why is it not considered greed for people to want to take from others what is not theirs? When children take what is not theirs, we usually correct their behavior. Of course the makers need to protect what they earn. The alternative is effectively a recipe for disaster (vote for me and I'll give you stuff by taking from them). At the state level, people tend to move to states with lower taxes, so there are limits on what the high-tax states can do. At the national level, their is no choice, hence the danger. Margaret Thatcher once said (paraphrasing) "Liberalism works until you run out of other people's money." The more takers and the fewer makers, the more likely we will run out of other people's money.

On health care, military policy, foreign policy, federal court appointments, education, infrastructure, conservatives have largely won. Obama is no liberal. Who believes otherwise now except the ultra-rightwing? If not of the financial collapse, we would likely have seen the privatization of Social Security and Medicare.

It is a mark of how conservative the US is (including Democrats) that so many can see Obama as so liberal. He opposed even the public option in health care. He surrounded himself with economists who supported deregulation and privatization without limit. He has supported torture (yes, at Bagram and domestically), opposed due process.

The US _is_ conservative. The right-wingers have largely won.

Your caller Rita made an excellent point. My Irish Catholic family has followed a similar trend. The "I've got mine, you go get yours" mentality certainly increases as people perceive that they HAVE got something.

Everybody gets help from the Govt, they just project their guilt on other groups.

A white wid-western businessman, who doesn't mind getting a dubious tax break or a bailout, will think free lunch to poor urban kids is "not fair"

Pensioners in Florida that get $$$ they "deserve" in medicare, don't think they should "pay" for student loans for "free-loading" college age Americans. That's life.

Please ask your guest if the so-called "Independent Voter" is just another name for "Republican Refugee". Thanks!

I still remember Hilary Clinton's choice of words when she was busy running. A lot of "take back" America from what "they" are going to do to it. This is just the way the underdog party has to work it, apparently.

The "us" versus "them" in most of the world, the United States of America included, is People versus Government. The pseudo-arguments are a ruse, a red herring to keep the masses distracted. Government has grown far too large, far too meddling.

Since the election of St. Ronny, the top 1% have tripled their take of the national income (from 8% of GDP to 23%). This could ONLY be achieved by using the system and the tax code to rest those gains from the middle and lower tiers. E.g. taxing capital gains at 15% but interest on savings is taxed on income -- and not even allowed to grow first. The current GOP rhetoric is meant to cast any and all attempts to bring balance and fairness back to the incomes in America as 'redistributionist' and 'socialist'.

What is the appropriate response when you realized you have been robbed for the last 30 years?

Has a memo gone out recently telling talking heads and radio/tv guests telling them to begin their responses to viewers questions, "That's a great question."? It's becoming silly at best. It also diminishes what is really a "great question". Please send a memo canceling out that memo, and stop interviewing people who say, "uh, uh, uh, uh" or "ya know, ya know, ya know". PLEASE!!!
I'm don't call in because I'm a ya knower. It's irritating.

What I see on the internet: Tremendous resentment in the 16 to 28 age group for having religion abused for votes.

If right-wing Republicans are viewing this election as a last-ditch effort, a last chance against a huge demographic tide, then what do they hope to accomplish if they win? The demographic changes will continue anyway. Are they hoping to implement constitutional changes? Court changes that will last 20 or 30 years?

Ethnocentric is a good word, but please just call it what it is - racism. You nailed it, though: "how dare you take away my hard eared medicare and give it to those unworthy (insert eithnic stereotype here)"

The Republicans are losing the Hispanic vote, that is the major mistake. They should embrace Hispanics, who share alot of the same "values" as expressed by the party. But, the immigration issue, like abortion before it, will destroy the party. And if so, so be it. Let it die.

Isn’t santorum now running for the 2016 nomination?