I hope all on thid board realize those extras on the bottom are from different languages. I used to fall asleep to CNN or MSNBC, but everything became so divisive and not newsworthy. The same for Fox. All are ventriloquist dummies for the respective parties. Now, if I need news, I turn on BBC. Mostly now I just play my Calm app on my Echo.
I don't find that to be accurate. If new taxes won't be for people making less than 450K a year that doesn't harm the middle class. Democrats want more regulation and to hire more people to cut down an system abuse. Republicans are against more regulation and hiring more. If 80% don't abuse the system and 20% do, it is wrong to punish those 80%.
That actually made me laugh. You really believe a pathological lying con is not feeding you BS? Now that's hilarious. The guy is a felon, a cheat, and fraud. What you see is what he wants you to see. I guess it works on some people. LOL He has a history of deceiving and cheating people to get ahead. He still owes cities around the country millions of dollars for unpaid rallies. He's facing more trials for multiple felonies across several states. You can't show me one rally, debate, or interview where he didn't blatantly lie his as* off. Fact checks prove that every time.
Are you kidding me? Reeko is one of the worst. All the name calling he does is childish Yep exact same thing happened to me and it's CNN's fault because they'd have a whole Trump press conference on then right after twist the words I literally just heard from their network. They're all the same, fox, msnbc, cnn, etc.
I believe we are discussing trickle down economics, not trying to tax someone making 450k. If I am a high earner, I can rest assure you I am going to find every possible way to make sure I get every bit of it. The higher the tax rate, the more options I am given. Democrat drones are very frequently bad at business and money management. For example, Democrats want more regulations. They don't care what they regulate, they just want to regulate something. It makes them feel powerful telling someone else how to operate.
please address me as the #1 MAGA hater…I am head of the anti-MAGA board of directors all that he/him, they/them stuff doesn’t bother me because I never even think about it nor do I deal with it in real life…u should know by now Idc about any of this “war against woke” stuff
WaPo column Opinion: When your opponent calls you ‘communist,’ maybe don’t propose price controls? It’s hard to exaggerate how bad Kamala Harris’s price-gouging proposal is. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/08/15/kamala-harris-price-gouging-groceries/ excerpt: “Price gouging” is the focus of Vice President Kamala Harris’s economic agenda, her presidential campaign says. She’ll crack down on “excessive prices” and “excessive corporate profits,” particularly for groceries. So what level counts as “excessive,” you might ask? TBD, but Harris will ban it. That’s the thing about price gouging: As has been said of hardcore p*rnography, you know it when you see it. It’s not hard to figure out where this proposal came from. Voters want to blame someone for high grocery bills, and the presidential candidates have apparently decided the choices are either the Biden administration or corporate greed. Harris has chosen the latter. In a news release Wednesday, her campaign said the first 100 days of her presidency would 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.” What are these “clear rules of the road” or the thresholds that determine when a price or profit level becomes “excessive”? The memo doesn’t say, and the campaign did not answer questions I sent seeking clarification. The most likely template for Harris’s proposal is a recent bill from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). (Harris co-sponsored similar legislationwith Warren in 2020, when Harris was a senator.) Warren’s bill would ban any “grossly excessive price” during any “atypical disruption” of a market. Alas, no definition was provided for these terms, either; rather, the bill would empower the Federal Trade Commission to enforce bans using any metric it deems appropriate. It’s hard to exaggerate how bad this policy is. It is, in all but name, a sweeping set of government-enforced price controls across every industry, not only food. Supply and demand would no longer determine prices or profit levels. Far-off Washington bureaucrats would. The FTC would be able to tell, say, a Kroger in Ohio the acceptable price it can charge for milk. At best, this would lead to shortages, black markets and hoarding, among other distortions seen previous times countries tried to limit price growth by fiat. (There’s a reason narrower “price gouging” laws that exist in some U.S. states are rarely invoked.) At worst, it might accidentally raise prices. That’s because, among other things, the legislation would ban companies from offering lower prices to a big customer such as Costco than to Joe’s Corner Store, which means quantity discounts are in trouble. Worse, it would require public companies to publish detailed internal data about costs, margins, contracts and their future pricing strategies. Posting cost and pricing plans publicly is a fantastic way for companies to collude to keep prices higher — all facilitated by the government. Normally, the government doesn’t like collusion. In fact, the Harris campaign’s statement about her anti-“price gouging” agenda highlights a case she won as California attorney general against companiescolluding to fix prices for LCD flat screens. Presidential administrations of both parties have similarly pursued cases against cartels and other anti-competitive conduct. That’s because price-fixing is already illegal. And it should be! It’s important to distinguish between real cartel behavior (whether among TV-makers or meatpackers) vs. temporary spikes in prices and profits due to high demand or supply-chain disruptions. Harris’s economic advisers are either too confused or lazy to tell the difference. They don’t seem to know the history of these kinds of policies and apparently haven’t thought very hard about what would make markets more competitive or improve the lives of voters. They don’t even seem terribly familiar with what’s happening to grocery prices, where the battle against inflation has, believe it not, pretty much already been won. *** So what actually happened with grocery inflation, if not “price gouging” (however defined)? Superstrong consumer demand plus major supply disruptions (the coronavirus pandemic, bird flu, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, etc.) pushed prices and profits up. Once those shocks abated and consumers started spending down their pandemic savings, price growth cooled. These are the kinds of facts the Harris campaign should be explaining to consumers, not exploiting for demagogic gain because push-polling suggests people are mad about “greed.” But more to the point: If your opponent claims you’re a “communist,”maybe don’t start with an economic agenda that can (accurately) be labeled as federal price controls. We already have plenty of economic gibberish coming from the Republican presidential ticket. Do we really need more from the other side, too? more at the link
https://reason.com/2024/08/16/harris-economic-illiteracy/ Harris' Economic Illiteracy LIZ WOLFE | 8.16.2024 9:30 AM Today, Democratic presidential contender Kamala Harris plans to unveil a new raft of policy proposals, including one that would offer $25,000 in down-payment support to first-time homebuyers, with even more doled out to first-generation purchasers. Now, the housing market needs lots of things, but subsidizing demand ain't it. In most places, the best way to alleviate high rental and purchase prices would be to cut regulations that make it hard to build. People's homebuying behavior has been drastically altered by high interest rates, a direct consequence of Federal Reserve policy meant to cool inflation. Come September, it's likely that the Fed will choose to begin the lowering process, which will most likely (slowly, over time) have the effect of spurring more home transactions. (Right now, those who bought homes in a low-interest-rate environment tend to want to stay in place, as transacting and originating a new mortgage would mean getting a significantly worse rate.) Somewhat contradictory information has been circulating as to whether Harris' policy would be directed toward the homebuyers themselves vs. the developers building these homes (in the form of tax incentives). Hopefully more will be revealed in her address later today, but regardless of which form it takes, government meddling in the housing market will probably not yield the desired results. Focusing on cost of living: Many of Harris' proposals thus far seem to address not job creation, promoted by Joe Biden, but rather trying to lower out-of-control cost of living. This is a good instinct. The only problem is that Harris' proposals are terrible on this front and will either be impossible to implement or result in unintended consequences that fail to meaningfully affect people's bottom lines. She seeks to cap insulin costs and other pharmaceutical drug prices, restore the COVID-era expansion of the child tax credit, and use the Affordable Care Act to reduce the cost of health insurance. This is all in addition to her proposal—the one I wrote about yesterday—to crack down on the profits of those greedy, greedy grocers, posting those *checks notes* 1.18 percent net profit margins. Who knows where she'll go next?
Editor's Notes: Why Harris’s golden boy should alarm every friend of Israel If these are the kinds of voices Harris is elevating, we have every reason to be deeply concerned about what this means for the future of US-Israel relations – and the security of the Jewish people. https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-814973 excerpt: It’s the kind of brisk Washington morning where the air feels heavy with history, the sort of day when policy decisions made behind closed doors ripple out to every corner of the globe. In one of those polished offices, Ilan Goldenberg, a man with a formidable resume and set of opinions, steps into his new role as Kamala Harris’s Jewish community liaison. To those who don’t follow Middle East policy closely, his name might not ring any bells. But for those of us who do, his appointment is a warning – a sign that the Biden administration might be ready to gamble with the security of Israel and, by extension, the stability of the entire region. As specified at depth and length by The Jerusalem Post's diaspora correspondent Michael Starr on Friday, Goldenberg’s career has been built on a specific ideological foundation: a deep, almost dogmatic, belief in the power of diplomacy, even with the most duplicitous of regimes, and a marked skepticism toward any show of strength by Israel. He’s the kind of man who, when faced with a roaring fire, would argue for a drop of water rather than a fire hose, fearing that the latter might cause too much of a splash. Take, for instance, his unwavering defense of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), better known as the Iran nuclear deal. To Goldenberg, this agreement was a masterpiece of diplomacy – a carefully crafted shield against the specter of a nuclear-armed Iran. “The deal would deter Iran from ever pursuing a bomb because it knows that if it started to dash, it would be caught quickly and attacked,” he once argued with the confidence of someone who has never had to face the terrifying consequences of being wrong. But the reality is far less rosy. The JCPOA did not dismantle Iran’s nuclear capabilities; it merely pressed pause on them. Worse, it unfroze billions of dollars that Iran swiftly funneled to its network of proxies – terrorist groups that have spilled Israeli blood and sown chaos across the Middle East. Goldenberg’s belief that the deal was the “best of bad options” reveals a fatal flaw in his thinking: he is willing to settle for a temporary Band-Aid rather than pursue a more complex, but ultimately more effective, cure. For Israel, surrounded by enemies who dream of its destruction, such half-measures are not just inadequate – they’re dangerous. The October 7 massacre occurred as a result of Iran becoming almost untouchable by the West, and the country’s support of its proxies on all fronts. Let’s face it: the JCPOA failed. Goldenberg’s ideology doesn’t stop at his misguided approach to Iran. Starr also highlighted how he has been a relentless critic of Israeli settlement activity, viewing this as the primary obstacle to peace in the region. In Goldenberg’s world, the construction of homes in Judea and Samaria is a sin so grave that it warrants “strong measures” from the United States to deter Israel from continuing. Never mind that these settlements are often used as a convenient scapegoat by Palestinian leaders to avoid promoting a long-lasting peace agreement, as they have no genuine interest in negotiating peace. Because the real issue isn’t a few apartment buildings, but rather the refusal of these same leaders to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. *** Harris’s selection of Goldenberg as her Jewish community liaison is not just a one-off misstep – it’s part of a broader pattern that should alarm anyone who cares about Israel and the Jewish community. This isn’t the first time Harris has chosen someone with deeply contentious views to play a crucial role in her campaign. Take Nasrina Bargzie, who was appointed her Muslim outreach leader earlier this week. Bargzie has a track record that raises serious concerns: she’s dismissed Jewish students’ fears of antisemitism as “organized legal bullying” and has gone out of her way to defend extreme pro-Palestinian activism on college campuses. She argued that even calls for the destruction of Israel are simply expressions of political speech, not hate. This kind of rhetoric, which brushes aside the real threats facing Jewish students and Israel, mirrors Goldenberg’s dangerous downplaying of the Iranian threat and the actions of the Palestinian Authority. Moreover, these appointments aren’t coincidental – they’re a clear indication of a troubling trend within Harris’s campaign. By aligning herself with individuals who hold extreme, out-of-touch views, Harris is signaling that she’s more interested in appeasing the far left than standing up for America’s most reliable ally in the Middle East. Goldenberg’s push for a return to the flawed Iran deal, coupled with Bargzie’s defense of radical campus activism, paints a picture of a campaign drifting dangerously away from the principles that have long guided US policy in the region. If these are the kinds of voices Harris is elevating, we have every reason to be deeply concerned about what this means for the future of US-Israel relations – and the security of the Jewish people worldwide. more at the link
Not really into the blanket generalizations thing. And assigning random motivations to more than half of the population.
No joke! Poor OS, desperately trying to defend Trump as the guy to vote for. I wonder if he'll cry when Harris wins.
I wasn't trying to cherry pick anything. You mentioned Democrats not minding about hurting the middle class in order to punish the upper class. I mentioned the taxes Democrats have proposed and support that don't do that. Then you claimed you weren't talking about taxes. I did mention regulations and I mentioned specifically how they would specifically target the concerns you had about system abuses. Not sure how that is cherry picking data points. Then you mentioned how Democrats don't care about what the regulations are as long as they get to tell people what to do.
this is the second time in two days you've suggested I am a "Trump defender." find where I defend Trump. Then get back to me. btw, I'm voting for the black candidate
Here is an article discussing Harris' economic plans. I particularly applaud the housing incentives. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/what-we-know-so-far-about-kamala-harriss-economic-plan-141836855.html
The dumbest thing that most GOP supporters say is that because Trump was a businessman he can run a country, the GOVERNMENT is not a FOR PROFIT entity it's role is not to make the most money but to protect and support all of society. In fact a business person is the OPPOSITE of what is needed to successfully run a country - someone who looks out for the greater good of the people over money and business. It is staggeringly ignorant to think Trump and his 7 bankruptcies could run a country well. DD
