Kamala finally adds policies to her web page, do you support her new agenda? (Poll)

[Frankenstein]

thank you so much you cowardly troll with a juvenile scream name

Scream name?

 

[DBA]

Trump would add 5x more to the debt than Harris. At least working families get a little relief in the process.

When asked about the cost of childcare, Trump gave a rambling incoherent answer.

You are very misinformed. The economy will absolutely slow, if not crash, under Harris given her policies.

Again, Democrats fall for the pie in sky rhetoric.

 

[Marener]

You are very misinformed. The economy will absolutely slow, if not crash, under Harris given her policies.

Again, Democrats fall for the pie in sky rhetoric.

Better tell Moody’s how much smarter you are than them because they say the opposite.

Loading…

www.moodys.com

Anyone with knowledge of how the economy works knows that Trump has extremely inflationary policies. But you guys won’t talk about it because you’re “very misinformed”. The cult doesn’t allow doubt.

 

[Marener]

DBA I guess information that comes from outside the safe space of MAGA isn’t welcome.

 

[DBA]

Better tell Moody’s how much smarter you are than them because they say the opposite.

Loading…

www.moodys.com

Anyone with knowledge of how the economy works knows that Trump has extremely inflationary policies. But you guys won’t talk about it because you’re “very misinformed”. The cult doesn’t allow doubt.

I guess that type of article, with many pretty little charts influences some people. If you start reading and actually thinking about what is stated, it is mostly biased speculation with no substance. Interestingly, I found an article by Moody’s back in 2016 about how a Trump presidency would hurt the economy. Let’s look at some of their claims in retrospect.

“Driven largely by these factors, the economy will be significantly weaker if Mr. Trump’s economic proposals are adopted. Under the scenario in which all his stated policies become law in the manner proposed, the economy suffers a lengthy recession and is smaller at the end of his four-year term than when he took office,” the authors wrote. “By the end of his presidency, there are close to 3.5 million fewer jobs and the unemployment rate rises to as high as 7%, compared with below 5% today. During Mr. Trump’s presidency, the average American household’s after-inflation income will stagnate, and stock prices and real house values will decline.”

Pre-COVID, which clearly nobody knew was on the horizon, the outcome was quite the opposite of what these brilliant folks at Moody’s projected. There was certainly no recesssion, the economy as measured by GDP was steady, the unemployment rate was at a 50-year low just before COVID at 3.5%, inflation was low and the real wages(adjusted for inflation) of the average American household grew by 7%, including the COVID year. That is the highest of any president since the 1970’s. The DOW grew by 56%. Yeah, those guys are great.

And there is more:

“Everyone receives a tax cut under his proposals, but the bulk of the cuts would go to those at the very top of the income distribution, and the job losses resulting from his other policies would likely hit lower- and middle-income households the hardest,” the report said. “The decline in wealth caused by weaker stock prices and housing values would be felt by all households.”

None of this came true either, in fact, quite the opposite.

During Trump’s first three years in office, median household incomes grew, inequality diminished, and the poverty rate among Black people fell below 20% for the first time in post-World War II records. The unemployment rate among Black people went under 6% for the first time in records going back to 1972.

Even allowing for some variability in the accuracy of the economic modeling and underlying assumptions that drive the analysis, four basic conclusions regarding the impact of Mr. Trump’s economic proposals can be reached: 1) they will result in a less global U.S. economy; 2) they will lead to larger government deficits and more debt; 3) they will largely benefit very high-income households; and 4) they will result in a weaker U.S. economy, with fewer jobs and higher unemployment,” the report stated.

1) Whether you buy that we had a less US global economy or not, the proof is in the pudding. Our economy was stronger.

2) The current administration has added as much debt as Trump did in 4 years, including the COVID year.

3) Households of all income levels saw an increase in wage growth.

4) Again, unemployment was at a 50 year low. 3.5% is half of what Moodys projected.

Sorry, but I don’t put much stock into what these people have to say. I was much better off under Trump. Granted, my family is at a higher income level than most, but we are most certainly feeling the pain of Biden’s polcies. Investments are doing fine, for now, but I can only imagine how much lower income families are suffering under this administration. Harris’ policies will be Biden on steroids.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/trump-economy-moodys-analysis-224535

 

[DBA]

DBA I guess information that comes from outside the safe space of MAGA isn’t welcome.

Information is welcome, but I THINK about what I read. Pretty charts don’t make the information presented more accurate or reliable. They can easily influence fools.

When do you thoughtfully examine information that doesn’t coincide with your political ideas? For example, do you think taxing unrealized capital gains many any sense whatsoever?

 

[Marener]

I guess that type of article, with many pretty little charts influences some people. If you start reading and actually thinking about what is stated, it is mostly biased speculation with no substance. Interestingly, I found an article by Moody’s back in 2016 about how a Trump presidency would hurt the economy. Let’s look at some of their claims in retrospect.

“Driven largely by these factors, the economy will be significantly weaker if Mr. Trump’s economic proposals are adopted. Under the scenario in which all his stated policies become law in the manner proposed, the economy suffers a lengthy recession and is smaller at the end of his four-year term than when he took office,” the authors wrote. “By the end of his presidency, there are close to 3.5 million fewer jobs and the unemployment rate rises to as high as 7%, compared with below 5% today. During Mr. Trump’s presidency, the average American household’s after-inflation income will stagnate, and stock prices and real house values will decline.”

Pre-COVID, which clearly nobody knew was on the horizon, the outcome was quite the opposite of what these brilliant folks at Moody’s projected. There was certainly no recesssion, the economy as measured by GDP was steady, the unemployment rate was at a 50-year low just before COVID at 3.5%, inflation was low and the real wages(adjusted for inflation) of the average American household grew by 7%, including the COVID year. That is the highest of any president since the 1970’s. The DOW grew by 56%. Yeah, those guys are great.

And there is more:

“Everyone receives a tax cut under his proposals, but the bulk of the cuts would go to those at the very top of the income distribution, and the job losses resulting from his other policies would likely hit lower- and middle-income households the hardest,” the report said. “The decline in wealth caused by weaker stock prices and housing values would be felt by all households.”

None of this came true either, in fact, quite the opposite.

During Trump’s first three years in office, median household incomes grew, inequality diminished, and the poverty rate among Black people fell below 20% for the first time in post-World War II records. The unemployment rate among Black people went under 6% for the first time in records going back to 1972.

Even allowing for some variability in the accuracy of the economic modeling and underlying assumptions that drive the analysis, four basic conclusions regarding the impact of Mr. Trump’s economic proposals can be reached: 1) they will result in a less global U.S. economy; 2) they will lead to larger government deficits and more debt; 3) they will largely benefit very high-income households; and 4) they will result in a weaker U.S. economy, with fewer jobs and higher unemployment,” the report stated.

1) Whether you buy that we had a less US global economy or not, the proof is in the pudding. Our economy was stronger.

2) The current administration has added as much debt as Trump did in 4 years, including the COVID year.

3) Households of all income levels saw an increase in wage growth.

4) Again, unemployment was at a 50 year low. 3.5% is half of what Moodys projected.

Sorry, but I don’t put much stock into what these people have to say. I was much better off under Trump. Granted, my family is at a higher income level than most, but we are most certainly feeling the pain of Biden’s polcies. Investments are doing fine, for now, but I can only imagine how much lower income families are suffering under this administration. Harris’ policies will be Biden on steroids.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/trump-economy-moodys-analysis-224535

You missed the most critical factor in this analysis. It assumed Trump would actually do what he said.

He didn't.

Notably, Trump didn't deport 11 million illegal immigrants. He says he will this time around. Do you believe him?

 

[Hollie]

Trump would add 5x more to the debt than Harris. At least working families get a little relief in the process.

When asked about the cost of childcare, Trump gave a rambling incoherent answer.

Your usual, " because I say so, nonsense."

 

[Marener]

Your usual, " because I say so, nonsense."

You should know by now I always have a source.


Subscribe to read

Both candidates’ plans would increase the deficit, according to the Penn Wharton Budget Model at the University of Pennsylvania. But Trump’s plan would add $5.8tn to it over a decade versus Harris’s $1.2tn.

Subscribe to read

www.ft.com

Another nonpaywalled source.

https://www.axios.com/2024/08/28/trump-harris-national-debt-election

 

[Hollie]

You should know by now I always have a source.


Subscribe to read

Both candidates’ plans would increase the deficit, according to the Penn Wharton Budget Model at the University of Pennsylvania. But Trump’s plan would add $5.8tn to it over a decade versus Harris’s $1.2tn.

Subscribe to read

www.ft.com

Another nonpaywalled source.

https://www.axios.com/2024/08/28/trump-harris-national-debt-election

I understand your "sources" are among the most extreme leftist tabloids.

 

[Marener]

I understand your "sources" are among the most extreme leftist tabloids.

It’s an analysis from Wharton.

Another reminder that you’re a fucking moron.

 

[Hollie]

It’s an analysis from Wharton.

Another reminder that you’re a fucking moron.

You never bothered to look at what you cut and pasted from Axios?

Another reminder of why you're a fraud.

 

[Marener]

You never bothered to look at what you cut and pasted from Axios?

Another reminder of why you're a fraud.

You didn’t read the first sentence from the Axios article?

Donald Trump's campaign promises would send the national debt soaring much faster than Kamala Harris' would, per two new analyses from Penn Wharton Budget Model. Both of them increase the deficit relative to the current baseline.

 

[Hollie]

You didn’t read the first sentence from the Axios article?

Donald Trump's campaign promises would send the national debt soaring much faster than Kamala Harris' would, per two new analyses from Penn Wharton Budget Model. Both of them increase the deficit relative to the current baseline.

 

[Hollie]

Understanding your fascination for bright colors and graphs, no mention of the costs for more millions of illegals to be imported by Harris.

Once again, you cut and paste without looking at what you cut and paste because you're a fraud.

 

[Marener]

Understanding your fascination for bright colors and graphs, no mention of the costs for more millions of illegals to be imported by Harris.

Once again, you cut and paste without looking at what you cut and paste because you're a fraud.

And here’s your “because I said so” argument.

 

[Hollie]

And here’s your “because I said so” argument.

And here is your appalling display of ignorance. Point out where you cutting and pasting includes the costs of more illegals, or spending for Ukraine.

You tend to sit slack- Jawed and comatose as you stare at bright, shiny colors in graphs.

You're a total fraud.

 

[Marener]

And here is your appalling display of ignorance. Point out where you cutting and pasting includes the costs of more illegals, or spending for Ukraine.

You tend to sit slack- Jawed and comatose as you stare at bright, shiny colors in graphs.

You're a total fraud.

Point out where you have any sources at all.

“Because I said so” is all you have.

Fucking moron.

 

[Hollie]

Point out where you have any sources at all.

“Because I said so” is all you have.

Fucking moron.

Point out wher anyyone is obligated to accept your cutting snd pasting which has some obvious omissions because your "because I say so" nonsense is pointless.

 

[Marener]

Point out wher anyyone is obligated to accept your cutting snd pasting which has some obvious omissions because your "because I say so" nonsense is pointless.

It’s not “because I say so” when I have a source from economists at UPenn.

If you want to ignore it, go ahead. Your brain has been rotted by the MAGA cult.

Fact is Trump is proposing trillions of tax cuts and little if any budget cuts.