Economy I <3 how (R)s just awkwardly ignore conversations about economics and their track record on it

[Siver!]

Surprising. He didn't seem like a line crosser.

Yeah, I never saw him go for anyone - but he sorta lived on Dubs a lot of the time, so he must've kept pushing his luck

 

[Loiosh]

Yeah, I never saw him go for anyone - but he sorta lived on Dubs a lot of the time, so he must've kept pushing his luck

He posted a meme that was nothing but black and Jewish stereotypes that would have been considered racist garbage fifty years ago.

 

[Siver!]

He posted a meme that was nothing but black and Jewish stereotypes that would have been considered racist garbage fifty years ago.

Crikey... what a clown.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Trump is a major outlier, but putting him aside, some truths that people should appreciate:

1. Elections are mainly about resource distribution. For example, if Trump wins, we'll see an extension of the TCJA and more cuts for rich individuals and corporations, partially offset by across-the-board tariffs (meaning higher prices and more regressive taxes), cuts to benefits (including SS), and higher deficits. If Biden wins, we'll see higher taxes on the rich to cover costs and reduce deficits.
2. People with skeletons in their closets generally don't go far in politics. That would seem to be very obvious, but people fail to appreciate it because of 3. This is also why people who think Newsom has a chance at the presidency are wrong. People see a smart, effective governor and think why not take the next step? He wants to. But he already has major scandals in his past that the general public isn't aware of, and anyone who has big scandals early in his career almost definitely has other stuff out there we don't know about.
3. Despite 2, the higher you go, the more you get smeared. That means partisans will be convinced you're the worstest person ever, and also that people who don't get it will think "maybe this or that particular story is bullshit, but where there's smoke, there's fire."
4. 3 is especially true of people with more popular views on 1. The reason Clinton gets accused of being a murderer, child sex trafficker, vaguely "corrupt" or even more vaguely "establishment," is that "she's going to raise taxes on the rich and reduce poverty" is not a politically effective attack. Any time you're discussing politics and not mainly thinking about 1, you're being fooled.

 

[Loiosh]

Crikey... what a clown.

It was so bad it had to be intentional. The huge lips and dim eyes, I almost reported himself. If it’s still there I’m wrong and this place is worse than I thought.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I dedicated a sizeable portion of the op to asking right-wingers constructive questions. It's not my fault that your crowd are too cowardly to engage with the thread.

If I were to try to respond to the main point (forget Trump--I think everyone knows he's corrupt AF), I'd say that the superior economic record of Democrats is largely either luck or reverse causation (maybe Democrats are more likely to get elected during economic downturns).

1. The COVID recession was global. I think Trump did a horrible job handling the pandemic response and the downturn didn't have to be as big as it was, but we were going to get some big downturn either way. Similarly, the U.S. recovery was the best in the developed world (and far, far better than average), and Biden deserves some credit for that, but we would have had some recovery either way.
2. The collapse at the end of W's presidency was also global, and it's not clear to me that Bush could have done anything differently to prevent it. And again, the U.S. recovery was among the best in the world (and Obama deserves credit for that), but again, there would have been some recovery no matter who the president was.
3. The recession at the end of HW's presidency is probably what cost him the election and I don't see any way to blame him for it. It's not clear to me that Clinton deserves any credit for the strong economy during his presidency.
4. The shitty economy of Reagan's early presidency was deliberately engineered by the Fed in order to tame inflation. It worked and then they were able to cut rates a lot and create a boom (so Reagan really deserves neither blame nor credit there). And BTW, rising inequality started before Reagan took office and was global. He certainly didn't help, but I don't think it's really accurate to put that all on him.

 

[emefer]

No more super nofriendo
Not gonna miss it.

 

[emefer]

Expanding the program.

Expanding it how?

 

[Jballer]

RIP Super Nintendo!

What happened?

Isn’t this like the third or fourth time he’s been banned? He somehow always comes back.

 

[Poatan Power]

I always hesitate to contribute to topics that devolve (or start) as D vs R stuff. They may not be equally reprehensible, but they're both reprehensible.

 

[whocares]

MAGA are a college football fanbase. There's a mascot/team to root for, there's a tailgate party, there's beer, there's big flags, and Roll Tide. That's about it. Economics? You mean that class where we learn how to knit and change diapers? Nah I took shop class.

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

Spend more, live worse.Bidenomics

 

[blackheart]

He posted a meme that was nothing but black and Jewish stereotypes that would have been considered racist garbage fifty years ago.

So long young chuddite. I think when I discarded him as my pet chud that's what really broke him inside and lead to this outburst

 

[blackheart]

I always hesitate to contribute to topics that devolve (or start) as D vs R stuff. They may not be equally reprehensible, but they're both reprehensible.

The op isn't D vs R stuff, and I'm absolutely no democratic party loyalist. At no point did I mention democratic policies and/or juxtapose them against Trump's or the Republican's. You did all of that in your head. The op is specifically about highlighting how righties awkwardly shy away from discussions on the Trump tax cuts or the Republican general horrible track record on the economy. Then the other part of the op is asking republicans for detailed explanations on how they define the elite.

Any honest liberal should be able to admit the failures of the democratic party's neoliberalism. And a lefty will willing point them out.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The op isn't D vs R stuff, and I'm absolutely no democratic party loyalist. At no point did I mention democratic policies and/or juxtapose them against Trump's or the Republican's. You did all of that in your head. The op is specifically about highlighting how righties awkwardly shy away from discussions on the Trump tax cuts or the Republican general horrible track record on the economy. Then the other part of the op is asking republicans for detailed explanations on how they define the elite.

Any honest liberal should be able to admit the failures of the democratic party's neoliberalism. And a lefty will willing point them out.

I would say that any honest leftist should be able to admit that "neoliberalism" has been an incredible success, both in America and throughout the world.

I also think "reprehensible" is kind of insane. The level of hatred some have for people who are stepping up and actually getting involved and trying to make things better is nuts.

 

[helltoupee]

I've been saying this for quite some time - calling Trump 'anti-establishment' is about the best example I can think of to demonstrate what an oxymoron is.

In addition to what you listed is the fact that when Trump cuts taxes for the wealthy, that leaves a void in funding that must be made up for by the only other Federal tax paying group - the middle class.

Not to mention, the first thing Trump did when taking office was appoint a bunch of career corporate lobbyists to positions of authority in his administration - to the tune of 6x more than any president before or after him. So anti-establishment, this guy.

Then you get people like @Scheme, who posted about how the wealthy pay a larger share of the Federal tax burden, which is correct, however he completely fails to mention what portion of the overall wealth they control in the country. Ie., if we go out to dinner and I eat 90% of the food served to us, shouldn't I be expected to pay 90% of the bill? Just saying "I paid more" means nothing without context.

Trump increased overall spending while reducing the contributions of one (the wealthy) of the only two Federal tax paying groups. So guess what happens when one group pays less? Someone has to pick up the slack.

 

[Scheme]

I've been saying this for quite some time - calling Trump 'anti-establishment' is about the best example I can think of to demonstrate what an oxymoron is.

In addition to what you listed is the fact that when Trump cuts taxes for the wealthy, that leaves a void in funding that must be made up for by the only other Federal tax paying group - the middle class.

Not to mention, the first thing Trump did when taking office was appoint a bunch of career corporate lobbyists to positions of authority in his administration - to the tune of 6x more than any president before or after him. So anti-establishment, this guy.

Then you get people like @Scheme, who posted about how the wealthy pay a larger share of the Federal tax burden, which is correct, however he completely fails to mention what portion of the overall wealth they control in the country. Ie., if we go out to dinner and I eat 90% of the food served to us, shouldn't I be expected to pay 90% of the bill? Just saying "I paid more" means nothing without context.

Trump increased overall spending while reducing the contributions of one (the wealthy) of the only two Federal tax paying groups. So guess what happens when one group pays less? Someone has to pick up the slack.

Actually, I already posted the statistic that shows that the top 1% account for 26.3% of the income in 2021 yet paid 45.8% of the taxes. The top 10% of income earners paid 76% of all income tax. And I'd wager they do not get government benefits/welfare nearly as much as the bottom 50%. So essentially it is pure transfer payments from the top 10% to the bottom 50% to the tune of 76% of all personal income tax.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I've been saying this for quite some time - calling Trump 'anti-establishment' is about the best example I can think of to demonstrate what an oxymoron is.

In addition to what you listed is the fact that when Trump cuts taxes for the wealthy, that leaves a void in funding that must be made up for by the only other Federal tax paying group - the middle class.

Republicans argue that tax cuts for the rich are self-financing because it allegedly leads to higher growth, but, yeah, that is false. Also, note that even if middle-class rates aren't increased, regressive cuts logically imply lower incomes for the non-rich. Think about it. If the total tax burden of the top X% is lowered by $Y and economic growth directly attributable to the cut is <$Y, that logically implies lower income for people below X% of the distribution. That's true even if there is a small cut attached to people who earn <X%.

Then you get people like @Scheme, who posted about how the wealthy pay a larger share of the Federal tax burden, which is correct, however he completely fails to mention what portion of the overall wealth they control in the country. Ie., if we go out to dinner and I eat 90% of the food served to us, shouldn't I be expected to pay 90% of the bill? Just saying "I paid more" means nothing without context.

Trump increased overall spending while reducing the contributions of one (the wealthy) of the only two Federal tax paying groups. So guess what happens when one group pays less? Someone has to pick up the slack.

He's a nut, but it is true that *federal income taxes* are highly progressive, which is why they are often specifically targeted for cuts by rich people and their supporters in gov't. Other taxes in our system--especially at the state level--are either less progressive or regressive.

Another aspect of all this that gets forgotten is that for a long time, the economy was running below capacity, which meant that higher deficits were not inflationary (and in fact led to stronger real growth). Thanks to the explosive economic growth of the post-pandemic era, that's no longer true. Lower taxes/higher spending has to be paid for now or it more directly takes away from someone else.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Actually, I already posted the statistic that shows that the top 1% account for 26.3% of the income in 2021 yet paid 45.8% of the taxes. The top 10% of income earners paid 76% of all income tax. And I'd wager they do not get government benefits/welfare nearly as much as the bottom 50%. So essentially it is pure transfer payments from the top 10% to the bottom 50% to the tune of 76% of all personal income tax.

By definition, the rich (moreso in terms of assets than income, but also income) get much more benefit from the gov't. Though, yeah, they don't get meager SNAP checks.

 

[blackheart]

I would say that any honest leftist should be able to admit that "neoliberalism" has been an incredible success, both in America and throughout the world.

I also think "reprehensible" is kind of insane. The level of hatred some have for people who are stepping up and actually getting involved and trying to make things better is nuts.

Jack - I don't know what's going on with you that you refuse to care about the numerous disasterous economic indicators that have been getting worse and worse for decades.

Like, it just blows my fucking mind that you just don't care. Or you pivot to hiding behind vague grandiose claims like "well on the whole, things are better than they've ever been!"

People are working more hours on average in the US, than they have for at least a century. It's completely commmonplace for people to be holding 2 or 3 jobs and barely scraping by. That is not normal. That is not an improvement from decades gone by.

The relative cost of a home has skyrocketed. Secure housing is THE MOST important of all human needs, and my entire generation is being priced out of it. The home ownership rate for my generation is HALF of what it was for boomers at this same point in their lives.

The average American household is living paycheck to paycheck and doesn't even have a few hundred bucks for emergencies. Savings have vanished.

The relative cost of a degree, that thing you need to have a shot at a decent future, has skyrocketed and its trapping multiple generations in a cycle of debt that will prevent them from owning a home and/or building any kind of real wealth.

Like, seriously, what is it with you, that you're aware of all of this, you KNOW the indicators and data points that I'm talking about, and you just go "meh, who cares? More people have civil rights now and that means everything is objectively better"

Need I also remind you - that more than 50,000 Americans die every year because they're too poor to afford healthcare. That isn't a thing that exists among our peer nations. That sounds like a smashing success to you?

It's not. People are suffering economically, tremendously, and you sound like an out of touch alien when you try to gaslight them into believing they're not suffering.

And that's all just domestic issues!

Should we even get into the global network of murder that is required for your neoliberal system to work? How the first world uses the IMF to trap 3rd world nations in predatory loan deals to extract the country's natural resources while also paying themselves to do billions in infrastructure contracts? Should we talk about Coca-Cola using death squads to exterminate striking workers in Latin America? Should we talk about how neoliberal capitalism necessitates a permanent underclass of third world workers to exploit in order to remain profitable? Should we talk about the numerous regime change wars that have killed millions of innocent people, in order to remove and replace regimes that were not friendly to western capital? Should we talk about how neoliberalism is completely reliant on unequal exchange with developing nations in order to remain functioning?

Give me a break. "Smashing success". Yeah bro - tell that to the 1 million dead Iraqis who died so that Dick Cheney and Haliburton could get billions of dollars in no-bid contracts, while we simultaneously installed a regime that would submit their oil reserves to the control of western energy companies. Tell that to the nearly 200 labor organizers murdered by Coca Cola in Colombia alone. Tell that to Salvador Allende, who was deposed by a US coup because his socialism made him hostile to western capital. Tell that to Thomas Sankara, who was assassinated by the west for having the audacity to lift Burkina Faso out of the mud, nationalize their natural resources and invest the money back into the country, while pulling countless numbers of his people out of starvation and disease. Tell that to the 13,000,000 people that starve to death every year, when they live in a world that produces enough food to feed all of them. If you count millions and millions of dead innocent people as a "smashing success", then sure dude, it's been pretty grand.

Just in case you need a reminder -

It's great that more people (women and minorities) have civil rights and legal protections now. I'm not going to downplay that. But there is no universe in which that means things are actually better economically than in 1970.

How in the world do you look at this kind of data and say "no no no, don't let your lying eyes deceive you. things are actually better now than they were from 1950-2000, despite what all of the charts and all of the data say!"