US Presidential Election 2024 - Trump vs Harris - Vote Hard with a Vengence

[dimsum]

Worth a read as time allows: The Atlantic has a lengthy and sourced article with insider views from former Trump officials about his views on the military and the apparent appeal authoritarianism has for him.

It doesn’t reveal anything not already known about his character and the risks inherent in giving him power, but it does further reinforce them.


Trump: “I need the kind of generals that Hitler had”

Trump: ‘I Need the Kind of Generals That Hitler Had’

The Republican nominee’s preoccupation with dictators, and his disdain for the American military, is deepening.

www.theatlantic.com

Obviously Harris is worse because she doesn’t answer questions and is Marxist or something.

 

[brihard]

Well, that of a felon out on bail?


Pretty much what I plan on doing.

The split tickets will make for some interesting analysis by the electoral stats nerds.

 

[FSTO]

Worth a read as time allows: The Atlantic has a lengthy and sourced article with insider views from former Trump officials about his views on the military and the apparent appeal authoritarianism has for him.

It doesn’t reveal anything not already known about his character and the risks inherent in giving him power, but it does further reinforce them.


Trump: “I need the kind of generals that Hitler had”

Trump: ‘I Need the Kind of Generals That Hitler Had’

The Republican nominee’s preoccupation with dictators, and his disdain for the American military, is deepening.

www.theatlantic.com

He does realize they lost, right?

 

[Brad Sallows]

The

Your claim that Vice President Harris "failed to answer the question" overlooks the core of her response, which directly addressed how policy investments, such as the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit, pay for themselves through long-term returns.

I wondered if anyone would try that. It's the same argument as "tax cuts pay for themselves" (which Democrats have rightly derided for decades). In both cases, something that is conventionally (by economists) believed to stimulate economic activity is assumed to generate enough government revenue to offset the cost. Under particular circumstances, that might occasionally happen. Overwhelmingly, though, that doesn't happen because the revenue take is only a fraction of the economic gain. I don't know what happens in peoples' minds - maybe they mix up the GDP gain with the tax revenue gain; maybe they mistakenly hear "tax revenue" instead of "GDP" - but they are amost always mistaken. If the cost were a one-time or short duration commitment, then long-term it might be paid for. But tax credits and transfers to individuals are typically yearly things. And the present situation is much, much worse - everything paid for by borrowing costs not only the nominal amount borrowed, but all of its debt servicing costs, which are effectively future tax revenues unless the debt is abruptly repudiated or inflated away. There is not really a practical ability to say "this dollar is for X; that dollar is for Y", so in the absence of any realistic prospect of increasing revenues, there is only borrowing.

 

[QV]

Worth a read as time allows: The Atlantic has a lengthy and sourced article with insider views from former Trump officials about his views on the military and the apparent appeal authoritarianism has for him.

It doesn’t reveal anything not already known about his character and the risks inherent in giving him power, but it does further reinforce them.


Trump: “I need the kind of generals that Hitler had”

Trump: ‘I Need the Kind of Generals That Hitler Had’

The Republican nominee’s preoccupation with dictators, and his disdain for the American military, is deepening.

www.theatlantic.com

The Atlantic is a rag not worth reading.

As an aside, the Atlantic's David Frum did not acquit himself well against Steve Bannon in the Munk Debate on populism back in 2018. In fact, the original airing showed that Bannon had clearly won over the crowd... then a short while later they took the end result down and claimed there was a technical error with some bullshit explanation. Sure. It was embarrassing for Frum.

If you had watched the debate, you can clearly see Bannon gradually winning over a very tough crowd. But that wouldn't have suited the mainstream media/establishment narrative.

 

[brihard]

The Atlantic is a rag not worth reading.

As an aside, the Atlantic's David Frum did not acquit himself well against Steve Bannon in the Munk Debate on populism back in 2018. In fact, the original airing showed that Bannon had clearly won over the crowd... then a short while later they took the end result down and claimed there was a technical error with some bullshit explanation. Sure. It was embarrassing for Frum.

If you had watched the debate, you can clearly see Bannon gradually winning over a very tough crowd. But that wouldn't have suited the mainstream media/establishment narrative.

Then don’t read it.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The Atlantic is a rag not worth reading.

Goldberg was fair. He cited sources for both sides of the lead-in controversy. Sources on one side were anonymous and vaguely quantified, and on the other were named. Readers can judge for themselves.

 

[Lumber]

I wondered if anyone would try that. It's the same argument as "tax cuts pay for themselves" (which Democrats have rightly derided for decades). In both cases, something that is conventionally (by economists) believed to stimulate economic activity is assumed to generate enough government revenue to offset the cost. Under particular circumstances, that might occasionally happen. Overwhelmingly, though, that doesn't happen because the revenue take is only a fraction of the economic gain. I don't know what happens in peoples' minds - maybe they mix up the GDP gain with the tax revenue gain; maybe they mistakenly hear "tax revenue" instead of "GDP" - but they are amost always mistaken. If the cost were a one-time or short duration commitment, then long-term it might be paid for. But tax credits and transfers to individuals are typically yearly things. And the present situation is much, much worse - everything paid for by borrowing costs not only the nominal amount borrowed, but all of its debt servicing costs, which are effectively future tax revenues unless the debt is abruptly repudiated or inflated away. There is not really a practical ability to say "this dollar is for X; that dollar is for Y", so in the absence of any realistic prospect of increasing revenues, there is only borrowing.

I get what you’re saying, but Harris' plan isn’t just based on wishful thinking like the “tax cuts pay for themselves” idea. Tax cuts mostly benefit corporations and the wealthy, which doesn’t stimulate demand or help the economy grow as much as direct aid to working and middle-class families. Harris' plan is rooted in the proven concept that when you put money in the hands of people who actually spend it, it boosts demand and helps businesses thrive. That creates jobs and generates more tax revenue over time. Also, the borrowing argument doesn’t hold as much weight here. Right now, interest rates on government debt are historically low, meaning the US can afford to invest in people without racking up unmanageable debt. Plus, failing to help families now would be a bigger drag on the economy down the line. So, this isn’t a case of just hoping for the best—it’s about making smart investments that pay off in the future.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Obviously Harris is worse because she doesn’t answer questions and is Marxist or something.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"> The host admits the audience can&#39;t actually ask questions at Kamala&#39;s fake &quot;town hall&quot; with Loser War Hawk Liz Cheney because the questions are &quot;pre-determined&quot; <a href="x.com">pic.twitter.com/kccAaN1D5M</a></p>&mdash; Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) <a href="

https://twitter.com/x/status/1848462400451739839

">October 21, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Brad Sallows]

I get what you’re saying, but Harris' plan isn’t just based on wishful thinking like the “tax cuts pay for themselves” idea. Tax cuts mostly benefit corporations and the wealthy, which doesn’t stimulate demand or help the economy grow as much as direct aid to working and middle-class families.

This is a bit of a threadjack, but I don't like to allow partial or misunderstandings to propagate.

Corporate tax cuts benefit many people - workers, shareholders, people who rely on whatever the corporations do. Whatever money moves from "cost" (tax) to "profit" isn't simply dumped into mattresses. Simply noting that the money moves ledger columns won't do.

Tax cuts for the wealthy also benefit many people, for essentially the same reason - the money isn't dumped into mattresses. It's invested or spent. Whether it goes directly into a business or into funds which provide capital for people who haven't enough to launch their own enterprises, it's usefully employed. If it buys luxury goods, it supports the people who make luxury goods. And if some traditional jobs are disappearing, more non-traditional jobs will be helpful to replace them. Luxury goods are one of those.

And it's not always the case that tax cuts mostly benefit the wealthy. The yardstick matters. In absolute dollars; yes, usually the wealthy benefit more because their incomes are greater. As percentages of disposable income, lower classes sometimes do better. And obviously people paying little or no tax get little or no benefit.

Harris' plan is rooted in the proven concept that when you put money in the hands of people who actually spend it

I cannot emphasize enough : direct spending is only one use; I've noted others above, all beneficial to growing economies and putting more income in the hands of workers.

Right now, interest rates on government debt are historically low

Depends on what you accept for comparison. Here is at least a proxy, if not exactly the quantity you have in mind. Current rates are somewhere in the mid range between historical highs and lows. And since the cost is basically rate * principal and the principal amount is very high right now, arguably the US "cannot afford". There's a mix of opinions as to whether the debt is unmanageable yet or nearly so.

Most "investments" governments make are really just consumption spending.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Possibly. But the other guy says things then an army of surrogates have to go out and explain “what he really meant was…”

Possibly. But, why do you keep deflecting to Trump everytime someone points out a problem with Harris. "Yeah, well what about the other guy." Harris has a whole army of MSM parrots and talking head that get a briefing note to explain to the world what harris supposedly meant when she opens her mouth.
I know it's near impossible to defend her, but you can at least try.

 

[Lumber]

Possibly. But, why do you keep deflecting to Trump everytime someone points out a problem with Harris. "Yeah, well what about the other guy." Harris has a whole army of MSM parrots and talking head that get a briefing note to explain to the world what harris supposedly meant when she opens her mouth.

Ok first off, this entire thread of discussion stems from YOU claiming that both Trump and Harris are buffons. This whole back and fourth since then has literally been about comparing the two, and you literally started that. We aren't deflecting, we are literally tackling the heart of the question at hand.

I know it's near impossible to defend her, but you can at least try.

That's fresh coming from someone who's reaction to being presented with criticism and countering view-points is to block people.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Ok first off, this entire thread of discussion stems from YOU claiming that both Trump and Harris are buffons. This whole back and fourth since then has literally been about comparing the two, and you literally started that. We aren't deflecting, we are literally tackling the heart of the question at hand.

That's fresh coming from someone who's reaction to being presented with criticism and countering view-points is to block people.

Give it a rest.

Wah, wah. It's all your fault.

Horseshit.

I block who I want. I learned a long time ago that reading some of the drivel from others isn't good for my blood pressure. You can always petition the owner to remove the feature. In the meantime, while it's there, I'll use it.

What a childish premise to build a rebuttal on.

 

[KevinB]

This is a bit of a threadjack, but I don't like to allow partial or misunderstandings to propagate.

Corporate tax cuts benefit many people - workers, shareholders, people who rely on whatever the corporations do. Whatever money moves from "cost" (tax) to "profit" isn't simply dumped into mattresses. Simply noting that the money moves ledger columns won't do.

I think theoretically should have been in your explanation - as generally when you look at what most corporations have done is pocketed the money in retained earnings or issued them to shareholders. While RE can be beneficial to provide a buffer for growth, or security against a down turn, but shareholders are usually wealthier people (or at least people with a significant stock portfolio) - which rolls down to the next point.

Tax cuts for the wealthy also benefit many people, for essentially the same reason - the money isn't dumped into mattresses. It's invested or spent. Whether it goes directly into a business or into funds which provide capital for people who haven't enough to launch their own enterprises, it's usefully employed. If it buys luxury goods, it supports the people who make luxury goods. And if some traditional jobs are disappearing, more non-traditional jobs will be helpful to replace them. Luxury goods are one of those.

Again theoretically, there are a lot of justification for tax cuts on the wealthy, but generally there is no trickle down, it is put into further tax shelters, and the middle class end up shouldering more burden.

And it's not always the case that tax cuts mostly benefit the wealthy. The yardstick matters. In absolute dollars; yes, usually the wealthy benefit more because their incomes are greater. As percentages of disposable income, lower classes sometimes do better. And obviously people paying little or no tax get little or no benefit.

I cannot emphasize enough : direct spending is only one use; I've noted others above, all beneficial to growing economies and putting more income in the hands of workers.

Depends on what you accept for comparison. Here is at least a proxy, if not exactly the quantity you have in mind. Current rates are somewhere in the mid range between historical highs and lows. And since the cost is basically rate * principal and the principal amount is very high right now, arguably the US "cannot afford". There's a mix of opinions as to whether the debt is unmanageable yet or nearly so.

Most "investments" governments make are really just consumption spending.

The problem is both parties spend irresponsibly.
It's like we went on a bender since the 1950's and squandered time and money on hookers and blow. We have significant infrastructure issues - (which I will also point out are becoming self licking ice cream cones, as apparently we also forgot how to make bridges and roads in the 1950's as stuff we make now is in need of replacement in 2-3 years if now less). So we are paying more for less.

We need smaller government, we need to cut the rampant spending, but we do have things we do need to spend on, and unfortunately that means regardless we will need to likely raise taxes.

Both parties just like to stick their heads in the sand and bitch and moan about the other while doing nothing and letting us rush towards a cliff.

 

[Lumber]

Give it a rest.

Wah, wah. It's all your fault.

Horseshit.

I block who I want. I learned a long time ago that reading some of the drivel from others isn't good for my blood pressure. You can always petition the owner to remove the feature. In the meantime, while it's there, I'll use it.

What a childish premise to build a rebuttal on.

If you would describe the quality of the posts on this site as "drivel", then please for the love of god and your health, do NOT ever go on Reddit or Twitter. You will have an aneurism.

 

[Remius]

Possibly. But, why do you keep deflecting to Trump everytime someone points out a problem with Harris. "Yeah, well what about the other guy." Harris has a whole army of MSM parrots and talking head that get a briefing note to explain to the world what harris supposedly meant when she opens her mouth.
I know it's near impossible to defend her, but you can at least try.

There is no deflection. This current tangent in this thread is about contrasting both candidates ability to communicate and how they do so. You can’t just criticize one without at least recognizing it in the other given the immense library of incidents that highlight the issue.

The main difference is that Trump has very much normalized his communication style. So much so that nothing is that shocking anymore. I find it rich though that you or anyone who supports trump are critical of Harris’ communications but brush off what or how trump communicates or when people point it out.

The whole thing about how they communicate or don’t is fun to watch from afar though.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I think theoretically should have been in your explanation - as generally when you look at what most corporations have done is pocketed the money in retained earnings or issued them to shareholders. While RE can be beneficial to provide a buffer for growth, or security against a down turn, but shareholders are usually wealthier people (or at least people with a significant stock portfolio) - which rolls down to the next point.

Shareholders are mostly institutions, including retirement (pension) funds and other general funds (which necessarily includes private retirement savings plans), and individuals . Too many US households report holding equities to be limited to the top 1% or even 10%. Here is one report (link to PDF download). RE doesn't go into mattresses, either. That's just what's left after dividend payouts, so it falls into the other categories: compensation, new investment, paying off prior debts, financial holdings that effectively end up putting capital temporarily into the hands of others.

Again theoretically, there are a lot of justification for tax cuts on the wealthy, but generally there is no trickle down, it is put into further tax shelters, and the middle class end up shouldering more burden.

Tax shelters aren't mattresses. Again, it's employable capital from someone else's point of view.

The problem is both parties spend irresponsibly.

Agreed. There's always a qualitative debate over whether its a spending problem or a revenue (tax rate) problem, but the quantitative analyses I've read overwhelmingly point to spending. The fraction of GDP taxed simply doesn't change much over time, irrespective of how rates move up and down. Why that is so does matter, but not as much as the simple observation that the revenue side hasn't been crippled by tax cuts and in fact doesn't move much in response to rate changes. It suggests that adaptations to tax rates make extrapolations from changes in rates almost a pointless exercise (eg. a prediction that a tax rate increase or decrease should amount to X revenue increase or decrease is useless if the amount of money moving out of or into tax-favourable uses balances the tax rate changes). As a matter of policy, lower tax rates encourage people to seek the best uses of their money rather than the most tax-favoured ones, which in turn is conventionally believed to be better for economic growth. (Tax sheltering is an artificial hindrance.)

unfortunately that means regardless we will need to likely raise taxes.

Correct. There is no revenue- or spending-only path out.

 

[KevinB]

Tax shelters aren't mattresses. Again, it's employable capital from someone else's point of view.

If you put in into Puerto Rico it is effectively a mattress - we have some screwed up loop holes that allow a lot of extremely wealthy folks to effectively pocket the money and hide it from the IRS.

 

[Brad Sallows]

If you put in into Puerto Rico it is effectively a mattress - we have some screwed up loop holes that allow a lot of extremely wealthy folks to effectively pocket the money and hide it from the IRS.

Not from the point of view of Puerto Ricans.

[Add: again, I emphasize: short of literally storing physical currency in hiding places, there is almost nothing people can do - or more importantly would want to - that doesn't make one man's savings into another man's borrowed capital. Even criminally laundered money ends up in productive uses.

If governments prefer to issue debt such as treasuries rather than simply increase the money supply, they need institutions - and thus ultimately people - with big pockets to buy that debt.]

 

[Fishbone Jones]

There is no deflection. This current tangent in this thread is about contrasting both candidates ability to communicate and how they do so. You can’t just criticize one without at least recognizing it in the other given the immense library of incidents that highlight the issue.

The main difference is that Trump has very much normalized his communication style. So much so that nothing is that shocking anymore. I find it rich though that you or anyone who supports trump are critical of Harris’ communications but brush off what or how trump communicates or when people point it out.

The whole thing about how they communicate or don’t is fun to watch from afar though.

It's easy. Trump is a known quantity. You can go back to 2015 and the same people here are making the same argument that they made back then. Almost word for word. There is nothing new about him. Harris on the other hand needs exposure.