ADVERTISEMENT

Kamala’s take on the Economy

Response to snarlcakes on the original post:

I don't disagree that Harris is pretty far left. But the conditions that will get her to the White House are a direct result of extremism from the far right and the inability of conservatives to maintain control of their party.

Why the hell didn't they keep Paul Ryan? He was a pure conservative and would have been able to beat Harris.
Trump is the problem. Get rid of Trump and MAGA and you'll have a chance to get your economic preferences back in charge.
 
Response to snarlcakes on the original post:

I don't disagree that Harris is pretty far left. But the conditions that will get her to the White House are a direct result of extremism from the far right and the inability of conservatives to maintain control of their party.

Why the hell didn't they keep Paul Ryan? He was a pure conservative and would have been able to beat Harris.
Trump is the problem. Get rid of Trump and MAGA and you'll have a chance to get your economic preferences back in charge.
Just stop. The reason Kamala would be president is the people who vote for her. Period! There are a myriad of reasons people could vote for her. Such as her mixed race, her gender, her liberalism, her manner of speaking, her $25k home ownership promise, student debt and medical debt cancellations, pro-Palestinian policy, and much more. Disliking Trump is down the list.
 
She’s not bright enough for the job. Neither is Chadon state. Sad. Hopefully divided gov and little gets done. Pretty amazing to think think at one time the Dems had Clinton and Obama. Harris is fit to run a mid sized nonprofit
Disagree. I don’t think she could organize a one-car funeral. Driving for Meals on Wheels is probably her highest and best use.
 
Another great example of a policy from one administration going on to cause problems for succeeding presidencies is the Nixon Wage & Price controls I mentioned the other day (along with its Nixon-era doppelganger, the exit from Bretton-Woods).

There is absolutely no question that Nixon's ill-conceived price control policies caused all kinds of headaches for Presidents Ford and Carter -- especially as regards oil/gas. In fact, I'd go so far as to say they played a key role in both of those presidents losing their bids for another term.
I don’t know why price controls ever get political traction. Economists are, I believe, unanimously opposed, yet that seems to be a go-to position. Prices rise because of supply shortages. Price ceilings have proven to cause more shortages.
 


She plans on fixing prices to bring down costs. That is f#cking stupid. The opposite happens. She’s beyond dumb.
Let’s recall the Johnson administration guns and butter budget followed by Nixon’s price controls.

Didn’t this create the beginnings of stagflation which the oil embargo shock supercharged.

The 2% return made by grocers makes price control to combat price gouging laughable.
 
Last edited:
I don’t know why price controls ever get political traction. Economists are, I believe, unanimously opposed, yet that seems to be a go-to position. Prices rise because of supply shortages. Price ceilings have proven to cause more shortages.
Because they’re irresistible to ambitious and reckless politicians. The pitch sounds good to a lot of people when they’re struggling with inflation or supply shocks or whatever else might be squeezing their budgets.

It should not be left unsaid that Nixon was reelected in a landslide, a year after he instituted these destructive policies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark
Response to snarlcakes on the original post:

I don't disagree that Harris is pretty far left. But the conditions that will get her to the White House are a direct result of extremism from the far right and the inability of conservatives to maintain control of their party.

Why the hell didn't they keep Paul Ryan? He was a pure conservative and would have been able to beat Harris.
Trump is the problem. Get rid of Trump and MAGA and you'll have a chance to get your economic preferences back in charge.
Bullshit. Complete lack of ownership on your side.
 
Well, as political messaging, populism works. It always has.

A lot of people will see any opposition to this as greedy people trying to keep lower income people out of home ownership so they can afford a bigger house and a faster boat.

Americans aren’t unique. Politicians have been successfully peddling this nonsense for a long time.

Knowing Trump, I wouldn’t be surprised if he tried to outbid her.
I don’t know if this has been posted yet but here goes.

 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66
Just stop. The reason Kamala would be president is the people who vote for her. Period! There are a myriad of reasons people could vote for her. Such as her mixed race, her gender, her liberalism, her manner of speaking, her $25k home ownership promise, student debt and medical debt cancellations, pro-Palestinian policy, and much more. Disliking Trump is down the list.
I disagree because I count myself as voting for her as my only option to make sure Trump does not get back to Washington.
 
Kamala, as just reported, on day one is going to put a minus sign in front of the inflation number. Quoted as saying, the banks will start paying us black folk for a change!!! Holla y’all
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Ty Webb iu and DANC
Again, what a populist statement and approach, which she knows (as a lawyer) has no legal standing



Context is here:

Just insane, tbh....I get it with Trump. But some would rather see our country burn to ashes, than vote for him. From "causing Civil War Like condition" comments, to price controls, to this....

Just mind boggling. All the things dems have accused DJT of doing, or going to do----they have done. Harris as POTUS is a fukin disaster.
 
This is along the lines of people saying we should institute term limits on Supreme Court justices (among other things) because they don't like the current composition of the court.

There aren't 38 state legislatures that are going to repeal the 17th amendment.

FTR, I would agree with your condemnation of democracy, if you're talking about a direct democracy. There's little question that such a nation would destroy itself. But we don't have a direct democracy. We have a republic, which is a form of indirect democracy. And it was created with very sensible limits.

What we need to do is seek to have those limits reimposed.
And guess which Party wants to do away with the Electoral College and elect a President based on the popular vote?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ty Webb iu
Response to snarlcakes on the original post:

I don't disagree that Harris is pretty far left. But the conditions that will get her to the White House are a direct result of extremism from the far right and the inability of conservatives to maintain control of their party.

Why the hell didn't they keep Paul Ryan? He was a pure conservative and would have been able to beat Harris.
Trump is the problem. Get rid of Trump and MAGA and you'll have a chance to get your economic preferences back in charge.
Paul Ryan didn't do anything in his 4 years as Speaker to indicate he'd be in any running for the Presidency. He faded so badly, he dropped out of politics altogether.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ty Webb iu
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT