American Politics Discussion Thread

[Mjmd]

 Just because he tried and failed, doesn't mean its ok.

Majority of the voters disagree with you - If he is elected. Even if he loses, it will only be a narrow margin)

There is a reason I worry. Once you accept the unacceptable its hard to go back.

[The Black Sword]

It certainly is true I've never understood the blind trust in Trump despite constant evidence contrary to his trustworthiness

I don't think they do have a blind trust in him (Well most of them, 30% of Americans are not going to be a monolith). They're probably happy to admit he's not perfect and he lies about stuff. The fact they can recognise these small mistakes probably helps them justify that they're being objective about the stuff that really matters.

When it comes to the big stuff, no-one is going to want to admit to themselves they voted for someone who tried to overthrow a free election. Or overturn Roe vs Wade, or insert terrible Trump thing here. Typically a voter in a similar situation might say: 'I never thought he'd do this, he let me down, it's his fault'. But it's hard to say that when a bunch of obnoxious people were being hysterical about it beforehand and you assured them it would never happen. The whole situation has really got to warp your thinking, even if you are a person who is otherwise smart and has good values. You're not going to deliberately deny reality, but you're hardly going to stop looking when you're current best explanation makes you out to be the bad guy. And fortunately there's a big industry and community dedicated to throwing explanations at a wall until they find one that sticks and sounds defensible.

They don't need to trust Trump, they just need to believe it wasn't a terrible mistake to vote for him.

[Charr Babies]

How messed up is our country when we end up voting for the lesser evil instead of someone genuinely better?

The proof is in the pudding. The thing is, we had a full term of trump, and a full term of biden, back to back - A perfect comparison. And trump turns out to be the lesser evil.

[Mjmd]

I mean Biden isn't running anymore, but by most metrics easy win and that is with starting from a much worse point than Trump. I know a few people here like to complain about the start of Bidens tenure, but he was left with a mess. Trump took over a growing economy, went against good economic theory, and they herald him a genius. Again, I've talked about this recently, but even if you complain about issues of the Biden admin, Republicans haven't shown a damn bit of initiative at actually fixing anything.

EVEN IF the US was doing poorly, we know from history electing the fascist isn't generally the correct move.

Edit: but ya not the lesser of two evils, very much the greater by leaps and bounds as I've argued extensively.

[greenline]

In terms of money, the Trump administration saw continued economic growth, but also low levels of immigration and job growth for native (shall we say heritage?) Americans. The problems only started with COVID, because many state governments saw fit to institute heavy lockdowns and damage their economies significantly. Trump was not the man directly responsible for such orders, but one can say in hindsight that he was far too willing to give freaks like Dr. Fauci a microphone. Additionally, his administration passed two instances of giving money directly to citizens as relief, which was bound to increase inflation by some degree.

The Biden Administration did not vote for more direct aid to citizens, but has increased spending in several more areas, like foreign policy. They also completely opened the floodgates on immigration, so US citizens formerly benefitting from a tighter labor market have now seen it become very hard to find a job even while inflation has not abated. This is while the tech sector is experiencing significant layoffs and contraction, which is concerning when the tech industry is really the only area of the US economy that can claim to be offering actual productivity growth. The Biden administration has also been involved in creative ways of trying to cook the books on CPI and other metrics to try and make the economy look stronger than it ever has been. Stock valuations are indeed higher than ever before, but the economy is showing nasty signs of stagflation outside of those stock valuations. When even the most normie economists out there are also starting to use the word 'austerity' unironically, you know there's trouble coming.

People would expect another Trump administration to provide tax cuts, a significant reduction in immigration or even large scale deportations to stop transferring large amounts of wealth to immigrants over US citizens. Tax cuts themselves do not really provide a strong lever over the economy anymore, so to keep social security continually funded, one would need to see significant cuts elsewhere. Trump would ideally be making cuts to the least productive segments of the government, being administration, education, foreign policy. He could also see a large increase to tax revenue if progressive non profits and NGOs were opened to taxing. But each step presented here would have to be overcome by significant legal and governmental hurdles, so it may be that there is no way out of the current quagmire except for never-ending inflation or austerity measures.

The future Harris administration promises more immigration, more measures aimed at propping up stock prices, and possibly more reduction in inflation if spending can be managed. Harris herself has no background in any sort of economic policies and seems happy to do what people around her suggest. So I don't see any reason to be happy about her running the show, unless you think the past four years have shown deft economic management (and it is rare that people making this point can do so without sounding like a pathetic, braindead shill). If Bidenonomics were really worth praising, they would be a highlight of the campaign instead of coconut memes and abortion.

[Mjmd]

Again, Trump started with a growing economy. So person A) starts in a better position and gets worst numbers is the winner? or is person B) who starts in a worse position, has constant fears about a recession that never materialize and has better numbers? Its not a hard test, if you don't attach names or parties to this scenario everyone would pick B 100% of the time. Trump flubbed the response to Covid. It should be noted he also implemented lockdowns TO HIS CREDIT. Eventually. But in any case the president gets the blame, and I think there is some fair blame and some unfair. Giving qualified lifetime medical professionals a microphone vs people who know nothing is generally the thing to do in situations however. But yes he also with heavy democrat help passed some direct relief, again to his credit. Which is also the main thing Biden did that people like to blame all of inflation on him for. Even though I think its a large range of issues, but we've covered that.

You realize unemployment is at almost unprecedented lows right? However, you are correct tech sector has experienced layoffs, but I would attribute that to mainly low cost countries catching up. Its hard to justify a single US tech person costing $400K when you can buy an entire department in Malaysia for that. But again a good case for keeping up in education. Again, people have been predicting economic trouble for the US this entire administration. There was a couple years there where we were getting recession is coming headlines every week, but never materialized. I'll note that instead of unpayed for tax cuts to the wealthy, Biden admin has passed a paid for infrastructure bill that will help the American economy for many years to come and whomever is our next president probably gets to reap the benefits and look good because of it. Hell the next couple presidents.

Yes more unpaid for tax cuts for the wealthy. Republicans the party of fiscal responsibility!!! Do you even look at the Trump middle income tax custs expiring in 2025 , but the higher end ones staying in place and wonder who Republicans are looking out for? I'll note again Trump torpedoed a bi partisan immigration bill that was one of he toughest in a generation, specifically so he could campaign on it. BTW as mentioned numerous times immigration isn't a drain and is a net positive. The truth behind the US finances is you have to address the Pareto rule or 80-20. IE look at the big ticket items. Taxes, social security, medicare/cade, and defense. Republicans have a history of attacking the tax portion. Defense neither party is great at reigning in, Democrats sometimes slightly, but they both fail. So how are Republicans going to pay for tax cuts to the wealthy? Well they could gut the government, but most likely either the deficit will continue increasing and or they will target the safety net programs. I'll note inflation atm is 2.5% and has been pretty steady now for over a year, so major changes aren't probably the solution. Especially his tariff policies which will increase inflation.

I will note again one party is doing more work in anti trust than the other. The Biden admin being the most active in a generation. Listening to experts and other people isn't necessarily a weakness. Surrounding yourself with yes men usually leads to worse outcomes. They tried highlighting actual economic data and Bidenomics, but Republicans did a good job of associating with inflation, but I do think they should try to highlight the economics just without the name. Again, Rs haven't actually done anything themselves about inflation and its a complicated issue, but again president gets the blame I get it. But yes there is a lot of strong economic data to back it up, FROM A BAD START. Investing in infrastructure and capabilities for your country especially in slow economic times vs tax cuts for the wealthy when the country is already doing well, does vaguely sound like better economic policy.

[Charr Babies]

I mean Biden isn't running anymore, but by most metrics easy win and that is with starting from a much worse point than Trump. I know a few people here like to complain about the start of Bidens tenure, but he was left with a mess. Trump took over a growing economy, went against good economic theory, and they herald him a genius. Again, I've talked about this recently, but even if you complain about issues of the Biden admin, Republicans haven't shown a damn bit of initiative at actually fixing anything.

Biden isn't running anymore because he's beaten.

I don't care as much what the numbers say. The fact is, the majority of the population are finding it harder to make ends meet, while the rich gets richer. Homelessness has increased ~20% since trump.

Ukraine war 

Genocide in Gaza

EVEN IF the US was doing poorly, we know from history electing the fascist isn't generally the correct move.

Edit: but ya not the lesser of two evils, very much the greater by leaps and bounds as I've argued extensively.

So yeah, you still fail to convince anyone. Otherwise we wouldn't be here.

[greenline]

The great fears of a recession among the Biden team seem to be contributing to the problem. Some guy on the federal reserve was quoted as saying, "We will ensure that there will never be another recession in our lifetimes." But aren't recessions a natural part of the business cycle? So one can expect that more Bidenonomics means that the the government people will do everything possible in their power to prevent a recession, up to hyperinflation and transitioning to a command economy. These cures are worse than the disease. There's no need to predict economic trouble for the US when economic trouble is the reality. People are already finding that social security checks aren't keeping pace with inflation.

Offering praise for lockdowns is going to be an indefensible take in a few years. The blue state governor plan of locking down the economy has done so well that the populations of urban centers in blue states like NYC and Chicago and San Francisco have been declining for years despite record levels of immigration. People are happily voting with their feet in saying that they think the lockdowns and other urban progressive policies have been not worth living under, to the point of migrating to states that have stricter abortion laws and never did lockdowns or mask mandates. The data is in and it has told us that listening to experts can actually be dumb and retarded, and it should be done with care rather than enthusiastic, uncaring consent.

Taxes on millionaires and corporations is a meme, because taxes would not even cover the current deficit, let alone an expansion of medicare. Right now inflation is being used as the least unpopular solution to the problem of too many obligations and not enough real income. But there is still the issue of an inverted population pyramid (which immigrants are only covering by providing less-skilled labor rather than anything gainful), a lack of growing productivity and industry. "Spending on infrastructure" (that is, pork barrelling and repair costs on highways) is not really a huge economic priority compared to those problems.

Also, this is the dumbest thing I've read in a long time.

Its hard to justify a single US tech person costing $400K when you can buy an entire department in Malaysia for that. But again a good case for keeping up in education

The US should be prioritizing education? To give the US population expensive degrees, to compete for tech and administrative jobs, which will then be outsourced to immigrants anyway? Lol?

Trump isn't a wise sage, nor is he interested in fiscal responsibility. Fiscal responsibility itself is a meme, because the deficit and debt have both continued growing at accelerated rates regardless of which administration has been in charge since the 70s. What people would hope for Trump is common sense. A sense for which spending is wasteful and should be cut, and where benefits should be allocated when given.

[Mjmd]

Edit: @ Charr

Part of our problem is people don't care about facts and numbers; you are correct. I would very much forward that voting for the party of tax cuts to the wealthy is probably not going to solve wealth inequality. Its not a great secret that Republicans have been attacking the Democrats increased funding to the IRS because they have been going after tax cheats more.

We've gone over these and there is plenty of blame, but there isn't a lot of proof it would be better under Trump.

Your never going to convince the extremes. I'm never convincing you or Greenline. But there are a lot of people who just don't care. Who maybe think both sides are the same, or it isn't worth it. There are TONS of people who will just sit this election out. People have died for our country and there are people who will just not get their butts to the polls because they don't care enough. Maybe, I've affected 1 or 2 of them. If nothing else I haven't been silent while our Democracy is under attack. Its the very least I can do. You'll note I almost never start a discussion in this thread, but I'll be damned if I just let people spew garbage.

[Mjmd]

@ Greenline

A long time ago people did used to believe that the government shouldn't interfere or try to mitigate recessions and depressions. You can go back and look at the length and harm that caused vs government trying to mitigate. Its not a hard sell. And calling the inflation we've experienced hyperinflation isn't anywhere NEAR accurate. As we've discussed there are a variety of contributions to relatively short lived moderate inflation experienced including as you've admitted some during Trumps term.

Is more economic harm caused by short term lockdowns or more people being dead. A lockdown might harm the economy in the short term, but more people being dead is going to harm your economy for decades. Even if you take out any moral consideration human capital is worth quite a bit. Its one of the prime inputs into an economy. Considering we hadn't spent money on infrastructure in a LONG time, most of our current infrastructure was in great need of being replaced. Infrastructure spending is needed to keep a country relevant. Unless you think things like ports, roads, and bridges aren't needed for an economy.

I mean reducing the deficit is still better than increasing it. Increasing taxes would provide more federal income. Again, immigrations filling low income jobs and increasing overall economic output seems ok to me. More companies mean more accountants (and other higher positions) are needed. Again, even for lower skill positions my machinist wife has worked at two companies heavily dependent on immigrant labor that probably wouldn't have existed otherwise.

I mean would you rather keep some of those jobs at $200K or lose all of them? Tech has been and is going to be a huge economic driver and just giving up completely on seems stupid to the extreme. Just because it isn't an easy win anymore doesn't mean you give up on it.

Glad you realize that Trump is not fiscally responsible. I would point out that the last time we were fiscally sound was under Clinton, which is much more recent than the 70s. Then Bush implemented tax cuts for the wealthy, which permanently taking way revenue (as no one likes to increase) has and will continue to impact.