Quite properly, the new American President is going to be a decent, intelligent, honest person, with a fitting program to go with that.
She is on top on every poll that counts, she will win by a landslide at the end.
And that is good news for America and for the world.
Amen.
It is good to dream.
shareYou think you've fallen from a coconut tree? Kakakakka
shareShe can't think of anything she'd have done differently than the guy who's got us in this inflationary spiral. And when asked what she would do differently, she says, "I came from a middle-class family...." 🤦🏼♀️
shareShe has discussed no program or agenda in detail other than "I hate Trump!"
IF she happens to be elected, we'll see what the world thinks of her when she serves up some of her famous Kamala Word Salad to hostile foreign leaders and makes the USA look absurd.
By the time her term is over, several states may have left the Union.
You could probably pick ten people at random out of any crowd in America and over half of them would be better presidential material than Kamala.
She will more than likely win, but everything in your first paragraph is absolute bullshit.
The idolizing of politicians in today’s world has become hysterical.
I like the sound of her policies but I have been following politics since Nixon and stopped voting because nothing ever gets done.
It's all talk during election years and then very little action between.
Don't get too excited.
What policies?
shareTax cuts for average people, student loan issues, stopping price gouging, etc.
If we are going to turn into a more socialistic country we need to put price caps on food, rent, education, and more.
That would stimulate the economy as the US is based on consumerism. So, more spending power equals more consumerism.
It's my guess that Democrats are interested in Universal Basic Income which would again stimulate the economy tremendously. However, increasing basic life expenses needs to be controlled before that can be effective.
On the other hand, the only time I've heard Trump talk about policy was on the Joe Rogan show and he didn't entirely articulate it. He had a good long time idea which is massive tariffs on foreign goods.
If he did that, manufacturing would be SLOWLY forced back to the US. Previously, rich people gutted the US by sending manufacturing to other countries, which to me is much like a workaround for slavery. Anyway, when Trump ran in 2016 he said he wanted to bring manufacturing back to the US, and that would do it.
Obama said the same thing when he was running though, lol.
The Trump idea would take decades though and even if he won he will only be in for four years which is no time to do anything. So, if he wins he will not be able to do much unless we have fifty years of Republicans, which we will not.
Explain "Universal Basic Income" please. I'm not trying to be a smart ass. I would just like to know where this money is coming from.
shareA country's economy is basically circular.
For instance, I get paid by my organization which is government funded, I go to the store and buy, the store pays employees, suppliers, etc, all of these people do the same, and they are taxed, so the money swirls around in a circle endlessly. All of the taxes from all the buying return to my salary and it all starts over again.
You could give a bum on the street a trillion dollars and none of it would be "wasted" unless he cashed it in and burned the money or put it in a foreign country.
Another point worth knowing is that money is what is called a "fiat currency" which means it is hypothetical and based on nothing. Gold is just shiny metal but there's only so much of it around. So, it was money based on an actual commodity. Now, money is just numbers that represent value. Crypto is a great example of this or if you get paid via direct deposit and don't use cash much. You see numbers on a screen and think you have money.
The economy is a hypothetical construct and so there's no need to "save" because nothing is being saved. However, it's important to spend because that gives the illusion of activity.
Universal Basic Income would come from the circulating hypothetical system of money. The idea is that it would be an amount that would supplement incomes to prevent stagnation caused by malfunctioning capitalism.
According to the founding father of capitalist theory, Adam Smith, EVERYONE is supposed to be their own business. For instance, if you mop floors you are supposed to be able to haggle your wages. But, business tends to "price fix" and so they all pay less money than is needed to survive/thrive to a floor mopper.
So, the floor mopper is now a stagnant member of the consumer economy. He is buying basic food, maybe no car, no house, no vacation, no entertainment, etc. The goal of UBI is to pay everyone amount X and that can go to rent, or whatever, and now more can be purchased, thus stimulating the economy.
The money is already there, US federal budget is about $6.75 trillion in FY 2022.
The estimated population of the United States over 18 in 2024 is 345,426,571.
If you give these money to adults equally, that is $19,541 each.
Of course they can't give it all away, for example military spending 5% (even international average is 2%), basic staff (including courts and judges), says 5%, security agencies like FBI, CIA and NSA, etc., 0.2% (yeah, I checked, those are the numbers), the rest is social programs, including education (teachers and student loans), public hospitals, medicare, social housing, food stamps, etc., which could all be replaced by UBI.
So $17,541 annually, roughly $1500 a month, is achievable, and of course all the other social programs would be cancelled, and vast majority of federal employees would need to be cut, lands and buildings to be sold, the ultimate small government.
At least I think that is the idea.
Politicians come and politicians go, but those government employees are always there, actually running the country, so you know it is not going to happen.
You say tax cuts, but then talk about student loan forgiveness, UBI, etc. Where's that money coming from? I'll answer for you: taxes and there aren't enough "rich" people to pay it all.
shareRead my previous response.
shareThere's no real evidence that price gouging is the main culprit of store inflation. There were many events over the past few years that all contributed, including a bill passed by the Democrats.
sharePrice gouging was an issue in the 70s during inflation and laws were passed then. It's a general reality with pricing.
For instance, I recall in the 90s a friend of mine worked in a department store and showed me what the highest priced jeans cost to buy vs sell. They were 50 cents a pair but were sold for 100, which was huge at the time.
That's price gouging and when "inflation" happens it's something businesses do. A good example is something like apartments. Rent does need to go up unless the building needs to be massively repaired. Most need no repair and so there's no reason for rent to go up very much, thus the increase in rent is price gouging.
Price gouging isn't going to show "evidence".
History has shown that too much price gouging will make the items run out of stock. Harris acts like that price gouging is for sure a major driver in being responsible for inflation when there are other definite scenarios that she seems to slip past. She needs to do some homework to make sure that she's not making a mistake if she really believes in it.
shareWhat you wrote makes no sense.
Price gouging would make products not run out and then eventually prices would be forced down but not before ripping people off, then they will still have to buy the same products so the price gouger can't lose.
However, if price gouging is used on essential items people will buy them no matter what. If you need a place to live, a car, etc sellers can push people into poverty and they will still try to pay.
Grocers are making less than they were 5 years ago.
They usually have about 2% profit margin(which is already very low) and are now at around 1.6%.
They actually absorbed quite a bit of the inflation to keep prices as low as they can.
You live in a fantasy world composed of propaganda talking points.
It must be fun to think you know what you are talking about, but really be full of shit, while accusing others of being a moron like you.
That's the American way!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/errolschweizer/2024/02/07/why-your-groceries-are-still-so-expensive/
https://pos.toasttab.com/blog/on-the-line/how-much-do-grocery-stores-make?srsltid=AfmBOopBUiF8ZQkJuC8UXVRKgLpeRyBIM_OlvCVahDHyN2pTuNKlBV1Z
Stores in general are making more via fake inflation.
The technique is to sell less...thus less expense...at higher prices.
Work on your research and reasoning skills, if possible lol.
Facts are stubborn things.
There is no price gouging going on.
See, you read articles with an agenda.
I look at hard data and facts.
This is why you are so confused and completely wrong.
You don't even know what "price gouging" is.
It was an issue during the 70s which had the same kind of inflation going on.
Laws were passed back then to stop it.
Meanwhile, the articles I posted were factual and without an agenda. Paranoia and stupidity are a vicious combo.
You are making absurd assumptions.
I know all too well about the 1970s economy. That was exactly when Americans got robbed by the government and the "price controls" of that era are a direct reflection of that robbery.
https://imageio.forbes.com/blogs-images/timworstall/files/2016/10/wagescompensation-1200x1093.png?format=png&width=1200
Americans got fucked, but it wasn't due to price gouging, FFS...
People like you were dumb enough to believe the BS narrative, and apparently still are.
The price gouging BS was to distract you. It worked.
The articles you post(ed) are all BS propaganda.
Notice how I stick to facts/data.
You stick to propaganda and (inane)opinion.
Since price gouging laws were passed in the 70s your comments are moronic.
shareI hope you are kidding. Let's start off with the fact that she keeps insisting that she's a middle class person, despite the fact that she was recorded living in a rather wealthy and beautiful neighborhood. Either she doesn't know what middle class means or she is trying to appeal to middle class supporters by saying that she is one herself.
share