Thread: American Politics
+
Add Report
Results 4,846 to 4,860 of 20122
-
08-16-24 20:28 #15277Why yes we do. Cut out the excessive fiscal stimulus when the economy is doing well. Keep interest rates high. Shrink the Fed's balance sheet.
Originally Posted by Spidy
[View Original Post]
The best way of course is not to create conditions that lead to inflation. As the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board writes today,
"The economy in January 2021 was fast recovering from the pandemic as vaccines rolled out and state lockdowns eased. GDP grew 34.8% in the third quarter of 2020 ,4.2% in the fourth, and 5.2% in the first quarter of 2021. By the end of that first quarter, real GDP had returned to its pre-pandemic high. All Mr. Biden had to do was let the recovery unfold."
So what do the Dumb Ass Democrats do? Pass out $1.9 trillion in handouts, fiscal stimulus that kicked off inflation. And then they followed it up with other legislation that increased the debt and added to the stimulus. The government spent a lot of money that provided less benefit to Americans than if it were spent and saved by the private sector.
Other points:
Don't overregulate, like Biden did. A Mercatus study estimates a 10% increase in total regulations led to a 0. 687 percent increase in consumer prices.
Don't lockdown economies for long stretches. If you do, you'll create shortages and logistical nightmares that contribute to inflation.
If Dumb Ass Democrats are going to overdo the stimulus, the Fed should step in with more restrictive monetary policy instead of sitting on its ass and twiddling its thumbs.
Don't increase tariffs, which increase prices. Instead lower them, which Biden didn't do.
Don't impose sanctions on large oil exporters, especially when oil prices are high. Too bad our politicians didn't push peace in Ukraine instead of throwing gasoline on the fire. If the war could have been nipped in the bud, oil, coal, LNG and grain prices wouldn't have shot skywards.
Put Libertarian Republicans, like Rand Paul, Jeff Flake and Justin Amash in positions of power, instead of Dumb Ass Spendthrifts like Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Donald Trump, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi.
It should be clear from the context above, but "Dumb Ass Democrats" refers to politicians. I don't believe you, EhiTooms, Xpartan et al are dumb asses. You are sadly misguided.
And stop calling us Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb or I'm going to call you and Tooms Beavis and Butthead. And as you apparently have decided to get into the same corner with Hugo Chavez, Nicolas Maduro, Cristina Kirchner, Kamala Harris, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter and Stalin on price controls, you're going to be Butthead. Too bad some people (e.g. Kamala Harris) don't learn from history.
-
08-16-24 20:11 #15276It's the other way around. If you put a gun to my head and tell me I have to vote for Trump or Harris, I'll vote for Trump. Six months ago, faced with a similar demand for Trump vs. Biden, I would have said, "Pull the trigger. " But Harris' judgement is worse than Biden's. And furthermore the worst fears of Trump's critics would never be realized. American institutions and old age would prevent him from stealing an election. He's probably less likely to get us into a war than Kamala. Originally Posted by EihTooms
[View Original Post]
ROTFLMAO! Hilarious, Rachel Maddow's editor wrote a book called Ministry of Truth. With reference to his and Rachel's body of work, he should have called it "Ministry of Propaganda." Originally Posted by EihTooms
[View Original Post]
Anybody with half a brain knows that if Trump's mouth is open, he's often lying. Elvis, who has a big brain, knows this, although he sees enough good in Trump, and bad in Harris, to support him.
Rachel Maddow is just as big a liar as Trump. Her delivery however is much smoother. I may have seen more of her on MSNBC than you have. She can weave a convincing story, complete with her glib, smiling delivery. Undoubtedly if you favor Democratic Politicians, you have a warm, superior, sanctimonious kind of feeling after watching her show. Often she's convincing. But after Googling some of her more credible sounding stories, I can say she's a master of misrepresentation.
Too bad she's just on once a week now. That was a major fuckup on the part of MSNBC. I'd always tune in to her show over Fox or CNN when she was on.
-
08-16-24 10:01 #15275
Does MAGA's own tweedledum and tweedledee have solutions to high prices?
Is that a fancy way of saying, "Republican Libertarian"? Originally Posted by EihTooms
[View Original Post]
Wait for it...I'm pretty sure the dreaded, "You're a partisan Democrat" is coming! (...kkkk!)
I am also pretty sure, judging from the "negative" MAGA campaign being ran by tweedledum and tweedledee, they are simply wanting until the Dems announce what issues and policies they'll be supporting, soon to follow with the "no nothing" MAGA campaign, suddenly having "policies/issues", which of course, mirrors everything "against" what the Dems stand for or support. Originally Posted by EihTooms
[View Original Post]
Yeah, good luck with a credible answer from, tweedledum and tweedledee, other than "drill baby drill". Originally Posted by EihTooms
[View Original Post]
-
08-16-24 09:14 #15274
Not really
You mean you will in at least some small way help Trump win the election by voting for Chase Oliver, right? Originally Posted by Tiny12
[View Original Post]
Other than to increase name recognotion, network for another job and so on, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, etc challenger to the Incumbent Party candidate gets in the race for one reason; to take votes away ftom the Incumbent Party candidate and help somebody else (or himself) win.
Even Chase Oliver knows very well a vote for him helps the next most blatantly obvious possible "winner" win.
And it ain't him.
It is Donald Trump.
But you already know that very, very well too.
-
08-16-24 05:01 #15273Yes, that's what I am! A Pretend Bothsider! A Pretend Neither Sider! MAGA to the core! What a relief to finally know! This must be what a pretend gay transvestite brought up by a same sex couple in San Francisco feels like when he finally realizes he's straight. And can finally go bang some women instead of dressing up in women's clothes and acting all effeminate! I can’t wait for my first Trump Rally! Maybe there will be another riot in the Capitol and I can go! Thank you Tooms for making me self aware! Originally Posted by EihTooms
[View Original Post]
Trump's proposed additional tariffs will be bad for inflation, and bad but less so for employment and GDP growth. Having borrowed lots of money in his career, and having repaid only some of it, he has no fear of running up the national debt. Or of politicizing the Fed and manipulating interest rates. I think that's a negative but who knows. Maybe he'll figure out a way to default on the national debt and we'll be debt free!
But yes, Kamala is worse. She doesn't know jack about the world outside of government. If she's able to do so, she'll jack up taxes and jack up government spending. And impose price controls! If she's like Biden, she'll be inclined to run the national debt up even more than Trump would, and will continue the Trump / Biden tariff regime. She'll try to regulate business into the ground. She's probably more likely to get us into a war. The woman's an existential threat to domestic oil and gas. She wanted to ban fracking! The price controls is the icing on the cake. And the ***** took away my backpage and wants to put me in jail for banging hookers. Contrast that with Trump who got those hookers to piss on Obama's bed in Moscow. Donald Trump is the Monger's Best Friend!
My vote will go to Chase Oliver.
-
08-16-24 04:00 #15272
A good start
I would go with: Originally Posted by CheckMate1
[View Original Post]
- Abolish the Electoral College, whoever gets the most votes wins (some may not reach 50% + 1).
- No Gerrymanding of House districts by partisan Party officials.
- Number of Senate Seats determined by state population of human beings, not the number of rattlesnakes, tumble weeds and outhouses.
- No term limits on any elected office.
- Term limits on appointed positions; the Supreme Court Justices.
- Major reform and restrictions on Big Money, Corporate campaign donations.
But we know most of these things will never happen in our lifetimes or the lifetimes of people born yesterday:
Constitutional Amendment Process.
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution
We would need a Dem in the WH and Dems to control at least two thirds of the House and Senate. Mainstream Media will never allow that to happen again after all the Great Things were accomplished for America when we had a Dem in the WH and Dem ratios like that in Congress before or very close to it.The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.
And none of those red states with more rattlesnakes, tumble weeds and outhouses than human beings is going to agree to that critically important popular vote, Senate Seat and gerrymandering stuff.
-
08-16-24 03:10 #15271
Can Trump utter any statement that is not a blatant, easily debunked lie?
In addition to Trump's repeated lie that "I did the insulin" that Biden-Harris passed into law, he apparently can not pass a Factcheck on a single assertion.
Check out this astonishing (brief and incomplete) list of total lies Trump told at his most recent public lie fest. As always, these Factcheck corrections are filled with hyper-links to the facts and substantiation that debunk Trump's constant lies about everything all the time:
Fact check: Trump falsely accuses Harris and Biden of lying about $35 insulin.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/14/polit...ris/index.html
Seriously. How much hatred does someone need to harbor for America to vote (or not vote) in any way that might, however remote the risk, result in a Trump election victory or the election victory of anyone else in his Loony, America-hating Repub MAGA Party?Other false claims
Trump made a variety of other false claims in the Wednesday speech. Here is a brief fact check of 13 of those claims, many of which have been previously debunked. (This is not a complete list.)
- He claimed that the price of bacon went up by four or five times under Biden and Harris. Its actually up 18%, nowhere near the 300% or 400% spike Trump is claiming.
- He claimed that Harris policy proposals will result in peoples taxes quadrupling. Experts say there is no basis for this claim.
- Speaking of Russias invasion of Ukraine, he claimed Biden is letting him have the whole thing. In fact, Biden has led an international effort to help Ukraine fight Russia; Russia has to date been able to seize about 18% of Ukraines territory, nowhere near the entire country.
- He said Covid-19 was ending all over the world, it was pretty much ending when Biden and Harris took office in January 2021. It was not.
- He said his tax cuts were the largest ever. They were not.
- He said he took in hundreds of billions of dollars from China through his tariffs on Chinese products, and that no previous president had taken in 10 cents from tariffs on China. Both claims are wrong. Study after study has found that Americans paid the overwhelming majority of the cost of Trumps tariffs, and the US was generating billions per year in revenue from tariffs on China before Trump took office.
- He said Biden appointed Harris as border czar and put her in charge of the border. In reality, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has been in charge of border security under Biden; Biden gave Harris a more limited immigration-related assignment, asking her to lead diplomacy with Central American countries in an attempt to address the root causes of their citizens migration.
- He said he built 571 miles of border wall. Official government statistics show it was 458 miles, most of it replacement barrier.
- He said he built more border wall than I said I was going to build. In fact, he repeatedly said during his 2016 campaign that we need 1,000 miles of wall, far more than he ended up building.
- He said he forced Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the Democratic vice presidential candidate, to deploy the National Guard during civil unrest in Minneapolis in 2020. In fact, Walz deployed the National Guard before Trump pressured him to do so.
- He said Venezuela is taking all of their criminals and people from mental institutions and bringing them to the US. Experts say there is no evidence for this claim.
- He said Houston has the only refinery in the world that can handle Venezuelan oil. Venezuelan oil.
-
08-16-24 02:42 #15270
And Trump's plan is?
As a pro Repub, pro Trump, pretend "bothsider / neithersider", what has your preferred 2025 potus, Donald Trump, proposed as his plan for what his MAGAs are screaming for; lower costs for rent, food and gas? Originally Posted by Tiny12
[View Original Post]
We know the usual Repub plan to accomplish those results; drive the USA Economy into a Great Depression / Great Recession and Wipe Out a few million jobs. Same solution for Trump this time?
And I have heard him say "drill baby drill" will drive down the cost of rent, etc. How so? And how much more drilling and oil production should Biden have done beyond the record high amounts, achieving true oil-related energy independence for the first time during his presidency, to lower somebody's rent?
And, please, only cite Trump's perfectly sane solutions for lowering the cost of somebody's rent, food and gas.
-
08-15-24 23:57 #15269I do not share your enthusiasm for this proposal. Originally Posted by EihTooms
[View Original Post]
-
08-15-24 23:26 #15268
Kamala Harris is nuts
This is from Noah Smith's substack today. Smith is about as far left as you can get for a mainstream economist. Think Paul Krugman. And here's an excerpt from what he has to say about Kamala's latest idea. It's only about the first 20% of a long piece. Please note the analogies to Venezuela and the Soviet Union in bold text below.
I've been doing a series of posts on the substantive ideas of the two presidential campaigns. I talked about Biden's policies back in May when he was still running, and when he dropped out I wrote a post about his legacy. On the Trump / GOP side, I wrote about Trump's terrible idea for revoking the Fed's independence, analyzed the RNC platform piece by piece, discussed the possible upside of tariffs on China, and argued that mass deportation of illegal immigrants would do no good for the economy, while spreading fear and division. Now it's time for some posts about Harris' ideas.
Today I want to talk about Harris' first big policy announcement a call for price controls on food and groceries. Here's the story, from the Washington Post's Jeff Stein:
Vice President Kamala Harris on Friday will unveil a proposed ban on "price gouging" in the grocery and food industries, embracing a strikingly populist proposal in her most significant economic policy announcement since becoming the Democratic Party's nominee.
In a statement released late Wednesday night, the Harris campaign said that if elected, she would push for the "first-ever federal ban" on food price hikes, with sweeping new powers for federal authorities.
Harris's plan will include "the first-ever federal ban on price gouging on food and groceries setting clear rules of the road to make clear that big corporations can't unfairly exploit consumers to run up excessive corporate profits on food and groceries," the campaign said in a statement.
The exact details of the campaign's plan were not immediately clear, but Harris said she would aim to enact the ban within her first 100 days, in part by directing the Federal Trade Commission to impose "harsh penalties" on firms that break new limits on "price gouging. " The statement did not define price gouging or "excessive" profits.
Price controls on food are a really terrible idea. The best-case scenario is that the controls are ineffectual but create the legal and administrative machinery for far more harmful controls in the future. The worst-case scenario is that they cause shortages of food and groceries, leading to mass hardship, exacerbating inflation, and setting America up for increased political instability.
If you want to defend Harris here, you pretty much have to assume that this is a populist proposal that she'll eventually backtrack on once in office, or fail to get passed. After all, in the final days of his campaign, Biden floated a (very bad) proposal for national rent control an idea he had never embraced in his presidency, and which was probably just a Hail Mary pass. But Harris explicitly said that price controls on groceries are something she'the do in her first 100 days as President, and candidates tend to be serious when they say that.
It's also a very bad sign that Harris intends to use executive power to implement price controls. She appears to believe that the Federal Trade Commission can impose penalties on companies that "price gouge" I. E. , that raise their prices more than the administration believes is warranted. I am not a lawyer, but the idea that the FTC can go in and simply tell a Kroger's in Michigan what price to charge for eggs seems like a vast expansion of the agency's powers.
The FTC has the power to stop price fixing, but that's something very different price fixing means when multiple companies illegally collaborate to keep their prices high instead of competing. It's dealt with under existing antitrust law, and the FTC has to sue companies in court to get them to stop it. I see no reason to believe that existing law allows the FTC to act like a central planning authority that can simply dictate what every grocery store in the land can charge for eggs, milk, diapers, and toilet paper.
So my guess is that the kind of price control regime Harris has in mind would require an act of Congress. I don't know if she could get it passed, or if SCOTUS would strike it down, but if it succeeded, it would create the legal machinery for the kind of disastrous spiral of price controls, hoarding crackdowns, and shortages that brought down the economy of Venezuela..
....Price controls can wreck an economy
Lets talk about the dangers of price controls, because theyre big.
First, think about what would happen if the President of the U.S. managed to impose price controls on grocery stores. As we saw in the last section, these stores have razor-thin profit margins when they increase prices, its because theyre paying higher costs. If the stores are forbidden from raising prices when costs go up, the government will be forcing them to take a loss.
What will the stores do if the government forces them to take a loss? They will sell less stuff, because theyre taking a loss with every sale they make. Shelves will go empty, just like they did in the Soviet Union, and just like they did in Venezuela.
When people hear the words Soviet Union and Venezuela in connection with the U.S. economy, they often roll their eyes. Those regimes were dysfunctional in a very large number of ways price controls were only a piece of the story in each case. But that doesnt mean basic economic operates differently in the USSR or Venezuela than it does in America. The economic logic of price controls in a competitive industry like groceries is basic Econ 101 supply-and-demand stuff. The good old Econ 101 supply-and-demand model doesnt work in all cases, but its very good at explaining exactly why price controls cause shortages in highly competitive industries: (There's a supply/demand graph here)
Yes, we've all grown tired of libertarians and free-market types shouting "It's just Econ 101, bro. Do you want to be the Soviet Union?" every time anyone proposes a government intervention in the economy. But in this particular case, they happen to be correct! (Tiny's note: The Libertarians and Free-Market types are right far more often than Smith cares to admit. But Kamala's nutty proposal is a bridge too far for even him.)
https://www.noahpinion.blog/
-
08-15-24 23:16 #15267If I recall correctly, you're a tea totaler. That is, you don't drink alcohol. As such you don't really have the life experience to understand this analogy. But here goes anyway. Originally Posted by EihTooms
[View Original Post]
Say you tie one on. You're the life of the party. You bang the woman of your dreams, not realizing in your alcohol dazed stupor that she's an ugly ****. You have a great time.
The next morning, you wake up puking your guts out on your bedroom floor, with a splitting headache and a couple of venereal diseases. Your friends all hate you. Worst of all, you have low self esteem, because you banged a fat, ugly ****.
This is what would happen if you put the current Democratic Party bunch in the White House, House and Senate at the same time. Now this doesn't entirely apply to the good old time Democrats. But the Dems today are nothing like the Dems who ruled America during the first two years of the Clinton and Obama administrations. Or, when you consider the influence of Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin, even during the first two years of the Biden administration. The current crop is stark raving mad. You leave them in power long enough and they might just do the same thing to the USA that Chavez and Maduro did to Venezuela or the Kirchner's to Argentina. Initially, for the first eight or ten years, the good times will roll, as they pump massive amounts of government money into the economy. Many of us, especially the ones sucking off the government tit, will live high on the hog. But then the inevitable hangover comes, and there will be hell to pay.
The same effect existed to an extent during past periods when Democrats controlled all the levers of power. They fuck things up a bit and then leave it to the Republicans and to shared power government (for example Clinton and Gingrich) to kind of clean up the mess. If they'd controlled all the levers of power for many years we likely would have ended up no worse than France. Unfortunately now the Progressives control the party. And they have the ideas to run the country down the tubes if in a position to do so.
Read my next post, where Noah Smith says Kamala's latest bright idea is what drove inflation in Venezuela, before you call me Chicken Little.
-
08-15-24 19:31 #15266
So full-circle to "big payouts" and "bonuses" now, huh?
Okay, So get a gov't job, just for the "security" but "not excellence" required, and then "get hell out"...okay I think I've got it! Originally Posted by Elvis 2008
[View Original Post]
But Elvis 2008, how do you square, if "excellence" isn't required for a gov't job, then why would, Repub George H.W. Bush, pass a tax exemption rule, to "attract talent", if none is required? Is this just another, boneheaded Repub tax dodge?
Doesn't this (George H.W. Bush tax exemption) seem to fly in the face of your back of the envelope theory, on "not excellence" in gov't jobs? How do you explain this?
(...kkkk!) What, the what now? So now you're taking in circles? Originally Posted by Elvis 2008
[View Original Post]
First it is for "security" but "not excellence" and now it's "the big payouts" and "bonuses" also? What's next?
BTW, I am pretty sure, SubCmdr's post, already covers this exact topic, when he refers to bonuses, cross-pollenation of employees and the symbiotic revolving door between gov't and business connections and relations.
So what you're really saying is, you now agree with the education SubCmdr provided you in his post? If so, congratulations for coming full circle!
SubCmdr's post: "My education for you Elvis is gratis" --http://www.internationalsexguide.nl/...=1#post2937221
BTW, Elvis 2008, how you do explain, "billionaire" Trump taking the gov't job of president in 2016? Where was the "big payout"? Since we all know he's trying to take the job in 2024, simply to stay outta jail?
-
08-15-24 18:06 #15265
Is it time to propose new amendments to the constitution?
I have three that I think with current state of population, technology advancement, and blindspot that currently not addressed in the constitution.
Proposal A: Change the electoral college to popular vote system, 50%+1.
Reasonings: The electoral college was set up so that large cities with information flowing slowly to the rural areas would not dominate rural citizens every election. Ideally not having only a few states to determine the outcome. In the 20th century, it was argued that the middle of the country would be disadvantage because election campaigns would only need to campaign in the outer perimeters of the country. Problem with this argument is that now we ACTUALLY have a few states deciding the outcome and with less representation of the populace. I believe we are in a good enough technological advancement that there are no real advantages of high population centers determining outcomes as it once did. News / Information is available within seconds as opposed to the past of newspapers lagging at least a day.
Proposal be: NO family members can serve in presidential admininstration, 1st cousins included.
Proposal see: No Elected members of congress / senate; President / Vice President; Supreme Court Justices can receive gifts from ANY person or business. All side hussle earnings will be donated to the treasury with neutral tax ramafication. One exception to this rule is proceeds from book sales will go to the author. All salary of elected officials are tax exempted. All incomes derived from investments shall be managed in a blind trust and tax exempt until leave of office.
Why are you running for a position in the Federal Government if you're not there to protect and improve the lives of its citizens? I think with these changes, you'll have more honorable people in government.
-
08-15-24 17:31 #15264But she started the war you love so much, and she stood up to Putin. She is going to be very neocon like. I cannot imagine why you would not like her. Originally Posted by Xpartan
[View Original Post]
And ending the war in Ukraine which would have never started had Trump been president. Originally Posted by Xpartan
[View Original Post]
I guess I am confused. Who is running things now and are you happy with the way things are being run? It is obviously not Kamala and not Biden. So Kamala is lacking but Biden is and was not? Originally Posted by Xpartan
[View Original Post]
You should vote Kamala Xpartan. Trust me, she will have an administration every bit as pro war as Biden is.
-
08-15-24 17:13 #15263It is funny that I thought of Chance the Gardner and Being There as well. Anyway, she finally showed her economic colors for the first time today: https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/...mbat-inflation. Originally Posted by Tiny12
[View Original Post]
Yes, let us beat up the food companies and impose price controls. Biden never understood how markets work and neither does Kamala. Remember what I said about Reagan v. Carter. Yeah, with Reagan, he got rid of price controls on gasoline. Carter had pretty up billions of ration coupons for gasoline. It was unreal.
When you look at the Biden list of accomplishments Tooms listed, it seemed like half or more was just spending government money. Going into debt or taking people's money is only an accomplishment if what you invest in has a multiplier effect like the highway system or space program. When you cancel student debt, you are just buying votes. That is not an accomplishment.
Reply With Quote
Posting Limitations
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
