• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Kamala Harris Election Campaign

Resume said:
Was this necessary?
Click to expand...

No, but it was a topical response to Armitage's anecdote about his mom. Hopefully the Harris campaign goes into the swing state with some understanding of basic factors in economics. Wouldn't you agree?

Or maybe I misunderstood. Maybe the point was that ignorance of basic economics is everywhere, and Harris will have her work cut out for her, trying to convince swing voters not to vote against their interests.
 
theprestige said:
No, but it was a topical response to Armitage's anecdote about his mom. Hopefully the Harris campaign goes into the swing state with some understanding of basic factors in economics. Wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...
I agree to the extent that Harris' campaign should demonstrate some semblence of economic understanding, but that doesn't mean in pointing that out, one has to be a dick about it.

Maybe the point was that ignorance of basic economics is everywhere . . .
Click to expand...

Yeah, especially amoung economists, as the old saw goes.
 
If you just have to demand we stop and have some economics 101 talk when a Democratic President/Nominee decides to help poor people but never when rich people do damaging things, your opinion means nothing.

Again I'm done with people who only remember to turn their persona to "oh crap I just remembered to pretend to have standards" or demand to have a big ethical philosophical talk when what's happening is "A good person is trying to do a good thing and I'm going to pretend any potential downside is the worst thing evar."

If you have talked yourself into the mindset that the only bad thing that can ever happen will happen because a good person trying to do good "goes too far" but the actual bad things that bad people have been doing for decades doesn't bother you, we don't need you in this discourse.

And as always "durrr who is this directed at durrr" is anyone who thinks the shoe fits.
 
JoeMorgue said:
If you just have to demand we stop and have some economics 101 talk when a Democratic President/Nominee decides to help poor people but never when rich people do damaging things, your opinion means nothing.

Again I'm done with people who only remember to turn their persona to "oh crap I just remembered to pretend to have standards" or demand to have a big ethical philosophical talk when what's happening is "A good person is trying to do a good thing and I'm going to pretend any potential downside is the worst thing evar."

If you have talked yourself into the mindset that the only bad thing that can ever happen will happen because a good person trying to do good "goes too far" but the actual bad things that bad people have been doing for decades doesn't bother you, we don't need you in this discourse.

And as always "durrr who is this directed at durrr" is anyone who thinks the shoe fits.
Click to expand...

Republicans tout free market economics, but regularly support corrupt crony capitalism that is crushing to many citizens. There is nothing free market about that.

I'm with Karl Marx (yes Karl Marx) when he said that the system of capitalism had done far more than any economic system ever created. But that the excesses create their own problems.
 
Tero said:
I actually went to the rally with Mrs T, since her sister did not want to go. We brought sandwiches and ate them in the line from 9-11. Water was free. After the short line up to metal detectors after 11 it was about 3 hours of standing. The venue was too small with such a hastily put together event. The balcony had seats. Worst part was the too loud funk/disco/roller skate type of music from a DJ, with almost nothing but the bass to be heard.

After all that (5 hours or so), speeches by local democrats and 45 minutes of Walz and his wife (first 15 minutes) and a Nebraska student they had once taught. Educators were heavily promoted. Stump speech items are these:
https://www.threads.net/@kamalahq/p...QGzQyaP4_-RLFeuai1MhYr3coD0B0uHoJrRmHTFwsNQ0g

many of the items reworded to NE audience.

I believe the venue problem was mostly to do with the federal agents assigned to this. About ten of them had to clear 2500 people through security in about 30 minutes. Also, there was not time to prepare the outdoor arena there. Think "rooftops." The extra people got herded there to watch it all on video screen. So up to 4000 got to see something.
Click to expand...

Wow, that sounds tiring! Well attended despite that, though. Dedication! :thumbsup::thumbsup:
 
Because my other post got moved going to quote the relevant part again here.

rdwight said:
Anyway, some new proposals, grocery price controls, 25k housing subsidy for first time buyers and expanded child tax credit back to 3600 per child, plus 6000 for new baby's. Price controls on food scare me a bit as it is a delicate market and tinkering beyond the outlier cases could cause more harm than good.

The housing subsidy seems like it would be absorbed into higher prices on homes. The child tax credit increase im on board with, was popular policy already and not something Republicans can push back on much with Vances views. Hopefully more info to come soon.

Eta: This site breaks the info we have down well and has the tax implications for each portion. 1.7 trillion $ deficit increase. Just so the cost is clear going in.
Click to expand...
 
Who gives a ****? Make some billionares pay their fair share.

"OH NO! POOR PEOPLE MIGHT GET MONEY! NOW I'M GOING TO SWITCH MY PERSONA TO 'PRETEND TO WORRY ABOUT TAXES MODE!'"

Oh no poor people might get homes and poor children might not start life with a disadvantage! We need that money for huge corporate bailouts!

Also those numbers don't add up. There's only 330 million people in the US. How is 25k housing subsidies and 3600/6000 child tax credits getting us to 1.7 trillion?
 
JoeMorgue said:
Who gives a ****? Make some billionares pay their fair share.

"OH NO! POOR PEOPLE MIGHT GET MONEY! NOW I'M GOING TO SWITCH MY PERSONA TO 'PRETEND TO WORRY ABOUT TAXES MODE!'"

Oh no poor people might get homes and poor children might not start life with a disadvantage! We need that money for huge corporate bailouts!

Also those numbers don't add up. There's only 330 million people in the US. How is 25k housing subsidies and 3600/6000 child tax credits getting us to 1.7 trillion?
Click to expand...

I mean, you could read the link and see what their methodology is, or do whatever this is. Totally up to you. But you bring up something I notice alot. The answer to anything is always "tax those rich people more". Never that everyone needs to brace for increased taxes if we want more social programs. If we want social programs like Nordic countries, everyone is going to have to pay more in taxes to get there. It's fantasy to assume otherwise.
 
rdwight said:
But you bring up something I notice alot. The answer to anything is always "tax those rich people more".
Click to expand...

1. Please stop lying.
2. **** that, stop lying without the please.

I've never said the solution to "everything" was taxing the rich. In fact I dare you, I ******* DARE YOU, you to quote one other post on this board where I've suggested raising taxes as the solution to a problem. Go find it. I'll wait. Bet you won't.

I've just called out people who only care about their taxes WHEN those taxes are going to poor people. Like you do.
 
rdwight said:
I mean, you could read the link and see what their methodology is, or do whatever this is. Totally up to you. But you bring up something I notice alot. The answer to anything is always "tax those rich people more". Never that everyone needs to brace for increased taxes if we want more social programs. If we want social programs like Nordic countries, everyone is going to have to pay more in taxes to get there. It's fantasy to assume otherwise.
Click to expand...

Not healthcare.

Check out the graph in the OECD in my signature.

Yes from 2990 until the ACA, when the methodology made it impossible to compare, the US spent a greater proportion of its GDP on public healthcare than the UK. And for a really bad system.
 
acbytesla said:
They don't apply to food either. The problem is the africulture and grocery industry is monopolized by too few players.

I would much rather solve the problem with greater competition. Unfortunately, far too many industries today have strangleholds on the markets and supply chains.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I have four grocery stores near me: Fred Meyer, Safeway, another Safeway that used to be an Albertson's until last year when it was bought out, and QFC. What kind of competition can there be when they're all owned by Kroger?
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
Exactly. I have four grocery stores near me: Fred Meyer, Safeway, another Safeway that used to be an Albertson's until last year until it was bought out, and QFC. What kind of competition can there be when they're all owned by Kroger?
Click to expand...

Exactly. I'm pretty sure Fred Meyer merged with QFC twenty years ago. I remember this because KIRO a local television station was asking customers walking out of Fred Meyer's what they thought about the merger. I said it could be a positive or a negative. That customers might benefit from a better supply chain and less duplication of resources. But it could lead to higher prices from less competition. I never thought they would use that video. And I never saw it. But half my friends called and told me they saw me on TV.
 
JoeMorgue said:
1. Please stop lying.
2. **** that, stop lying without the please.

I've never said the solution to "everything" was taxing the rich. In fact I dare you, I ******* DARE YOU, you to quote one other post on this board where I've suggested raising taxes as the solution to a problem. Go find it. I'll wait. Bet you won't.

I've just called out people who only care about their taxes WHEN those taxes are going to poor people. Like you do.
Click to expand...

Or show me a post where you say that all citizens need to expect higher taxes to pay for the social programs you want. And you can see from my post I agree with some of these policy proposals. But I don't agree hard enough for you. So I hate poor people. If you viewed my posts with a semblance of good faith it would help your understanding of where I'm coming from. Or don't, it's fine eitherway for me.
 
acbytesla said:
Exactly. I'm pretty sure Fred Meyer merged with QFC twenty years ago. I remember this because KIRO a local television station was asking customers walking out of Fred Meyer's what they thought about the merger. I said it could be a positive or a negative. That customers might benefit from a better supply chain and less duplication of resources. But it could lead to higher prices from less competition. I never thought they would use that video. And I never saw it. But half my friends called and told me they saw me on TV.
Click to expand...

Savings as a result of “economies of scale” differ depending whose thumb is the one on the scale.
 
acbytesla said:
Exactly. I'm pretty sure Fred Meyer merged with QFC twenty years ago. I remember this because KIRO a local television station was asking customers walking out of Fred Meyer's what they thought about the merger. I said it could be a positive or a negative. That customers might benefit from a better supply chain and less duplication of resources. But it could lead to higher prices from less competition. I never thought they would use that video. And I never saw it. But half my friends called and told me they saw me on TV.
Click to expand...

So enforce antitrust where appropriate. Explain to me how this proposal won't actually increase a company like walmart or targets market share, when they already have varied product offers that won't be affected by this policy? Payment terms will be the differential and large market share companies will beat out the small everytime, causing more closures.

Kroger itself only has a 10% market share, which while large isn't really going to crush all competition. They couldn't open and bully our existing chains here for sure.

And for companies like Tyson, I haven't really looked into their situation but to be honest, chicken is still incredibly cheap. For all the talk of inflation, I am not really seeing much in staple goods like chicken. Still see 2$ a lb sales but it has changed to more 2.50$ a lb sales. Not exactly breaking the bank for breast, thighs regularly cheaper. From my experience, goods of convenience and processed foods are where there is a more obvious increase.
 
rdwight said:
Or show me a post where you say that all citizens need to expect higher taxes to pay for the social programs you want. And you can see from my post I agree with some of these policy proposals. But I don't agree hard enough for you. So I hate poor people. If you viewed my posts with a semblance of good faith it would help your understanding of where I'm coming from. Or don't, it's fine eitherway for me.
Click to expand...

... I don't see you refuting the lie.

I'll wait longer.
 
jimbob said:
Not healthcare.

Check out the graph in the OECD in my signature.

Yes from 2990 until the ACA, when the methodology made it impossible to compare, the US spent a greater proportion of its GDP on public healthcare than the UK. And for a really bad system.
Click to expand...

Are usage rates similar? I don't doubt the math but assume the limitations would be something Americans reject, increasing the overall cost. Medicare for all had a push, even Harris was on board but she has pulled back her support to a more middle ground, although the specifics are still in flux. In the end taxes will increase, even if out of pocket costs per person averaged lower. Instead of spending XX to insurance, would spend X to taxes. The shift of where the money goes shouldnt matter but it will.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom