Or option 3. A bunch of them are socialists and believe in their ideas. Harris is a socialist.
Kamala’s take on the Economy
- Thread starter snarlcakes
- Start date
We can start by no longer popularly electing Senators and if we need to curtail it more from there we can.
1. Bitcoin
2. amendments on deficit spending and size of overall federal government
Both would be preferred, but I think either option would fix the issue.
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.
One of said limits would be repealing the 17th. I've lived nearly my whole life with a progressive leaning SCOTUS. I've never called for term limits, adding seats, ethics rules or any other such sour grapes nonsense. That only came about because progressives are sore losers. You didn't see a massive Republican smear campaign against the court after they pulled Obergefell out of their collective rear.
Leaving aside the Bitcoin suggestion...
I said the other day that it's unlikely we'll get the last 5 states needed to call a Constitutional Convention for a Balanced Budget Amendment. 29 states have currently done so -- 34 (2/3 of the states) are needed for it to happen. And then 37 are needed to ratify.
Every amendment that has ever been ratified has been done by way of 2/3 votes in Congress. We've yet to successfully have a convention called the other way.
I still believe that it's unlikely to happen. But I guess I wouldn't discount it entirely -- given the current projections of the federal budget imbalance.
I'm talking about reimposing the limits which are still active in the text -- most notably the Interstate Commerce Clause, which has been so loosely interpreted as to give Congress much broader powers than they were ever intended to have.
This is something that is actually plausible. It's not plausible that we'd repeal the 17th amendment.
Well, first and foremost is the ICC. There's a whole lot here to unpack. But, in a nutshell, the ICC has been interpreted to mean that almost anything could fall under the rubric of "The Congress shall have Power....to regulate commerce among the several states."
I also think a lot can be done within the Due Process clause -- and also direct/indirect taxes (beyond income taxes as defined in the 16th amendment, which explicitly exempted income taxes from apportionment).
They're reimposed by having them retested by the courts.
I was just answering twenty’s question of what needs to be done to maintain a Democracy and capitalism. I agree with you that there won’t be any balance budget amendments passed, which is why I’m so bullish on Bitcoin. Nothing stops the debt train.
Bitcoin will win in the end and force governments to shrink and be more efficient. Human ingenuity will solve the issue.
Being in the Oval Office at the right time makes or breaks many a president as the economy does have a life of its own beyond the influence of government.
Not saying presidents are completely unimportant just suggesting we can and do exaggerate their importance when it comes to the economy.
Bill Clinton, lucky. Herbert Hoover, not so lucky
.
Last edited:
That's not really the problem though, is it? I'm a yuge private sector guy, but someone who has public jobs isn't necessarily a problem or issue. Although they struggle to relate to the majority of working Americans, there are (or at least were) pockets of the government that required similar skill sets (e.g., military).
A few things:
Kamala doesn't know shit about econ, that much is clear based upon her political voting history. That being said, her advisors are clearly pushing her to run a populist type campaign (student loan forgiveness, price and rent controls, etc.) to win votes. I have doubts that she would actually push to enact such policy, but even discussing is quite concerning given what happened with tariffs.
A few of us were always critical of Trump's tariffs and protectionism stance, which certainly contributed to inflation. But, one of the few obvious benefits of Biden winning was supposed to be the removal of such trade protectionist stances. And yet, Biden actually enhanced them.
With Kamala being distinguishingly left of Joe, there are some real concerns about the economy and her likely push to raises taxes considerably (elimination of cap gains, increase in statutory rates, elimination of gift and estate tax benefits - sunsetting in 2025 without any extension, wealth tax, etc.).
This kind of stuff is a problem, especially if your administration wants to tout "record job growth". There isn't a large enough tax base to support it.
Biden Administration Job Growth Numbers Are Subsidized By Record Numbers Of Government Jobs — 25% of New Jobs Are In Government
In 2023, the U.S. job market experienced a trend where nearly 25% of all job gains were attributed to government positions, underscoring a significant reliance on public sector employment to sustain economic growth. This development is particularly striking given the broader context of a...
Correct. And to add to this: policies are ongoing and cumulative -- until and unless they're changed.Being in the Oval Office at the right time makes or breaks many a president as the economy does have a life of its own beyond the influence of government.
Not saying presidents are completely unimportant just suggesting we can and do exaggerate their importance when it comes to the economy.
Bill Clinton, lucky. Herbert Hoover, not so lucky
There are differing opinions about the origins of the 2008-9 subprime mortgage meltdown. I don't really agree with the people who say that the repeal of the Glass-Steagall amendment (a Depression-era statute which created a legal separation between commercial and investment banking) was the primary culprit. I think it had more to do with other mistakes.
But I do agree with them that the biggest mistakes have their roots during the Clinton Administration. Glass-Steagall was repealed in 1999, with Clinton's signature.
Whatever the causes, the meltdown occurred on GWB's watch, not Clinton's. So how does that fit into an analysis that goes no deeper than "Look how much better the data was during the Clinton years than during the Bush years"?
We don't just hit a reset button every time a new president takes the oath.
I agree with almost all of this -- and it all just confirms my depressing conclusion that we're being presented with two bad options for POTUS.
What I don't agree with you on is that she wouldn't actually push for this if she were to win. Look at the lengths that Biden has gone to in order to move student debt onto the public debt. Not only did he push for it, he didn't even so much as seek statutory authority to do it. He's been doing it through executive actions -- almost certainly using powers that he doesn't have.
I don't think this is just a typical campaign pitch that she'll quickly forget if she wins. At least, there's good reason to believe it isn't.
Craze, I've often said smart politics doesn't always go hand in hand with sound economics.
IMO, the politics behind arguing about Glass Seagall during the 2008 financial crisis was a distraction from real problems such as 5 trillion in basically worthless mortgage loans.
Like a husband and wife arguing about the cause of a house fire and forgetting to call the fire department.
I agree entirely. And, unfortunately, the postmortem effort to determine the origins of the crisis got bogged down in partisan finger-pointing and politics -- which entirely missed the point of the exercise. This wasn't being done to burnish or tarnish any political figure's legacy, or to promote one party or the other. The point of the exercise was to understand why it happened so we could avoid making the same mistakes again.
The country would function better.
They have gerrymandered power away from the North Shore. Half of it in the 9th district that gets overwhelmed by The People’s Republic of Evanston. Half of it in the 10th that gets run over by Waukegan.
Brad Schneider is not terrible as far as Democrats go, but it’s still a crying shame.
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.
does anyone really believe that she will be the one making decisions?
Amazing the insight our founding fathers had....THIS^^^^ sounds very familiar. Minus a few words, its exatly what Benjamin Frankilin said over 200 years ago.
Your bride-to-be from the North Shore, too? You going to move up there with your 8 kids and dominate New Trier in a few years? Did you get married yet?
Again, what a populist statement and approach, which she knows (as a lawyer) has no legal standing
Context is here:
www.vox.com
Context is here:
How a Democratic president could reduce drug prices without Congress
Two obscure laws provide an opening for a Democratic president to slash drug prices.
www.vox.com
Friedman on Wage and Price Controls. Great analogy of the tea kettle. I guess we can hope the results would finally, at long last, be different?
Get with the times man, I’ve been married for going on 6 months that’s why I can so confidently opine on the importance of marriage and child rearing. Wife is an Ohio girl and I would prefer not to move back North Shore if I had my way. Nothing against it, as far as Illinois goes it’s probably the best place to raise a family, just would prefer to get out of the state entirely.
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
The more lunacy that comes out of her mouth, the more nervous the press becomes about losing in November
