View Full Version : Kamala's New Economic Agenda (A disappointment)
catherine
8-16-24, 12:58pm
Source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/08/16/kamala-harris-starts-to-lay-out-her-economic-agenda/74800635007/
I really love the new energy Kamala/Walz are bringing to the Democratic ticket. I see that she has thrown down the beginnings of her economic policy, and I'm not thrilled..it seems that instead of attacking the problems at the source, she is using the government to fill in the gap between the middle class and corporate greed.
Examples:
Harris' campaign shared new details Thursday evening on her plans to bring down housing costs.
The plan includes up to $25,000 in down payment assistance for first-time homebuyers. That's more than the $10,000 tax credit for first-time purchasers the Biden administration previously laid out. Her campaign projects the initiative will help more than 4 million first-time buyers purchase homes.
Good thinking, but that's not the answer
Harris will also seek to provide homebuilders a tax incentive to construct and sell starter homes and establish a $40 billion fund to help local governments with address housing shortages.
Oh, good. Good-bye old growth forests as even more trees are wantonly felled so people can have brand new shiny houses.
See, this shows the difficulty in how people with Baltic and Mediterranean properties can make it against the owners of Park Place and Boardwalk. But using ad hoc bandaids furnished by the Government is not sustainable. I don't have the answer, but I would love for someone to come up with a better one than Kamala's
iris lilies
8-16-24, 1:12pm
I will just echo a Babylon Bee headline parodying Kamala’s campaign:
“Vote me into office to fix things!” Says the woman currently in office.
haha. But seriously, as we all know from watching the brilliant television show “Veep” the vice president has little to no influence on policy. I still hold her responsible for part of the cover-up of Joe Biden’s incapacity. Let us not forget that Joe Biden is still being allowed to operate as President of the United States by the same team. This is a travesty.
all that said, I do not personally dislike Kamala or her running mate. I *do* dislike their ideas.
iris lilies
8-16-24, 1:17pm
Ugh, catherine, agreed, throwing tax dollars at more social programs to help the middle class is an inelegant “fix” for the house buying middle class. The problem is that these same middleclass folks will be paying out tax dollars.
The dollars funneled through bureaucrats to get home buyers their $25,000 down payment is incalcuable and therefore depressing.
Wow, that policy is insane. I can't afford new construction. I guarantee starter house people can't, either. They should give out a $25000 k incentive to fix up an old starter house, like the brick ranch my son has in Indiana that costs around $125000 ten years ago.
We seem to be in a race to the bottom in economically illiterate pandering. Trump is talking about major tariffs. Harris wants to interfere in the housing market. She’s also talking about price controls, which I suppose serves equally well as both a pander and a way to distract from the role federal fiscal fecklessness in driving inflation.
frugal-one
8-16-24, 8:08pm
I will just echo a Babylon Bee headline parodying Kamala’s campaign:
“Vote me into office to fix things!” Says the woman currently in office.
haha. But seriously, as we all know from watching the brilliant television show “Veep” the vice president has little to no influence on policy. I still hold her responsible for part of the cover-up of Joe Biden’s incapacity. Let us not forget that Joe Biden is still being allowed to operate as President of the United States by the same team. This is a travesty.
all that said, I do not personally dislike Kamala or her running mate. I *do* dislike their ideas.
Look at the alternative. There is no question who is the better candidate!
I have been involved locally in producing affordable housing for ~25 years now. I’ve helped run our local Community Land Trust(*), served as a County Planning Commissioner for 12+ years, and was a County Housing Bank Commissioner for years.
Affordable housing, ownership or rental, is a very complicated problem. Randomly throwing money at it doesn’t really help much, long-term. Most of these proposals are transparent attempts to get votes, not an effort to address the variety of structural issues(**) that reduce access to housing in our nation.
(*) My island’s community land trust now administers:
- 8 neighborhoods
- 110 permanently affordable ownership homes
- 94 permanently affordable rental apartments
- 5 office spaces for rent/lease
- 96.1 acres of land
- 5 community gardens
(**) Nearly 20 years ago, the Housing Bank Commission issued a report after much work listing several dozen things that would likely improve our housing situation. The Commission has produced a nearly-identical report every few years since. Many of the items listed were simple no-cost regulatory or land-use changes entirely within the control of the County. The County has relentlessly refused to adopt most of those ideas, preferring instead to pursue a path that raises revenue by taxes on property transactions to fund…more employees at the County to think about affordable housing. They have caused nearly zero new housing opportunities to appear in the market here after wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars, indeed, their actions have likely increased housing costs and reduced new affordable construction.
iris lilies
8-16-24, 8:35pm
I have been involved locally in producing affordable housing for ~25 years now. I’ve helped run our local Community Land Trust(*), served as a County Planning Commissioner for 12+ years, and was a County Housing Bank Commissioner for years.
Affordable housing, ownership or rental, is a very complicated problem. Randomly throwing money at it doesn’t really help much, long-term. Most of these proposals are transparent attempts to get votes, not an effort to address the variety of structural issues(**) that reduce access to housing in our nation.
(*) My island’s community land trust now administers:
- 8 neighborhoods
- 110 permanently affordable ownership homes
- 94 permanently affordable rental apartments
- 5 office spaces for rent/lease
- 96.1 acres of land
- 5 community gardens
(**) Nearly 20 years ago, the Housing Bank Commission issued a report after much work listing several dozen things that would likely improve our housing situation. The Commission has produced a nearly-identical report every few years since. Many of the items listed were simple no-cost regulatory or land-use changes entirely within the control of the County. The County has relentlessly refused to adopt most of those ideas, preferring instead to pursue a path that raises revenue by taxes on property transactions to fund…more employees at the County to think about affordable housing. They have caused nearly zero new housing opportunities to appear in the market here after wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars, indeed, their actions have likely increased housing costs and reduced new affordable construction.
I am glad more employees to study the housing problem on your island are funded with tax dollars. More government jobs is always the answer! Kamala would approve. she would likely back a federal grants –in-aid program to further this goal.
ToomuchStuff
8-16-24, 10:52pm
Does she already have the backing of Congress to get this passed?
gimmethesimplelife
8-17-24, 6:07am
[/B]
i
Look at the alternative. There is no question who is the better candidate!Thank You.
I was about to post this myself! Rob
We seem to be in a race to the bottom in economically illiterate pandering. Trump is talking about major tariffs. Harris wants to interfere in the housing market. She’s also talking about price controls, which I suppose serves equally well as both a pander and a way to distract from the role federal fiscal fecklessness in driving inflation.
The tariffs would be a huge problem. So much is imported and we don’t make much here anymore. Not do we have the capacity to just turn it on. The tariffs were a big reason why the Depression went as it did.
ApatheticNoMore
8-17-24, 5:29pm
So there really is a housing shortage some places and there isn't much solution to that except build more housing (unless you massively redistribute where the population lives so that housing distribution near perfectly matches people distribution. I mean there may not be a nationwide shortage but if the houses and people are in different places, it obviously does no good. And the population has chosen where to live based on existing incentives, whether it's jobs or whatever).
But we mostly need multi-family housing not more single family houses. So this agenda doesn't sell me at all. If they give out incentives for anything let it be density and multi-family housing.
[/B]
Look at the alternative. There is no question who is the better candidate!
Indeed. Imagine if we even remotely held both candidates to the same standard.
If we’re going to discuss Kamala’s economic proposals let’s also discuss the moronic economic plans trump is proposing.
Why is building more housing not the answer to the cost of housing? Economics 101 says it is. And most construction today uses sustainably managed forests. The old growth wood has already been used up.
My humble solution is to let the laws of supply and demand find parity pricing. There are actually large areas of the country where housing is quite reasonable, but a lack of industry to support robust employment and a strong local tax base. I put the $25,000 incentive in the same boat as student loan forgiveness. It may buy votes, but it's not something I agree with. But like they say, it's better than the Trump/Vance alternatives.
Why is building more housing not the answer to the cost of housing? Economics 101 says it is. And most construction today uses sustainably managed forests. The old growth wood has already been used up.
I think incentivizing builders to build scads of new housing irrespective of the true demand is not the answer. I say let the market dictate housing development.
And as far as old-growth forests, there are pockets of old-growth forest left in the US (6% of all the forested areas), and those pockets are constantly under attack by private enterprise and local stewards of the forests who find themselves willing to sell out to the developers. In my state of Vermont for instance, I am part of a group that is fighting the sale of a portion of the Green Mountains to loggers because there is old-growth forest in that area. Nothing can replace old-growth forests for maintaining the integrity of the eco-system and sequestering carbon.
It is imperative to protect those trees; it is even part of the national agenda. But you and I know that money wins the day so people need to pay attention to the corporate entities that see only dollar signs and have the political clout to rape the land with no consideration to what we lose in the process.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-old-growth-forests/
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/06/20/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-proposes-plan-to-protect-and-steward-old-growth-forests-on-national-forest-system-lands/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/01/us-forest-service-old-growth-trees-deforestation-logging
iris lilies
8-18-24, 10:17am
I think incentivizing builders to build scads of new housing irrespective of the true demand is not the answer. I say let the market dictate housing development…
Ah, such a capitalist!
in my tiny town here we have a tremendous need for housing. That is because all the wealthy capitalists swoop in and buy any modest home and turn it into an Airbnb. And then there is very very little in the way of apartment complexes.
Down the hill from me is a giant ugly industrial abandoned building that city fathers foolishly allowed to be built in the mid-50s in the middle of my residential neighborhood. My God it is ugly. Someone has put forth a plan to turn it into loft Apartments. Perhaps that plan will be successful, but it’s hard for me to see how it can be a viable plan economically. But I hope he succeeds.
catherine
8-18-24, 10:28am
Ah, such a capitalist!
in my tiny town here we have a tremendous need for housing. That is because all the wealthy capitalists swoop in and buy any modest home and turn it into an Airbnb. And then there is very very little in the way of apartment complexes.
Down the hill from me is a giant ugly industrial abandoned building that city fathers foolishly allowed to be built in the mid-50s in the middle of my residential neighborhood. My God it is ugly. Someone has put forth a plan to turn it into loft Apartments. Perhaps that plan will be successful, but it’s hard for me to see how it can be a viable plan economically. But I hope he succeeds.
haha yes, in this case I'm more market directed than government-intervention-directed. I think that inflation has caused the housing crisis, as has the wealthy investor "swoop-in" as you said, and also baby boomers stuck in their McMansions and unwilling to move, and also the high expectations for "starter homes" by young people etc. etc. It's a very complex issue. I don't think just spilling out new houses paid for in part by the government is the most creative and best solution we can find. I like your neighborhood's solution of turning the industrial building into lofts... there is a similar apartment building in the town outside Burlington in the town that use to be a textile manufacturing town. They turned one of the factories into a really nice apartment complex called..fittingly...The Woolen Mill. That is a creative use of existing resources.
iris lilies
8-18-24, 10:50am
haha yes, in this case I'm more market directed than government-intervention-directed. I think that inflation has caused the housing crisis, as has the wealthy investor "swoop-in" as you said, and also baby boomers stuck in their McMansions and unwilling to move, and also the high expectations for "starter homes" by young people etc. etc. It's a very complex issue. I don't think just spilling out new houses paid for in part by the government is the most creative and best solution we can find. I like your neighborhood's solution of turning the industrial building into lofts... there is a similar apartment building in the town outside Burlington in the town that use to be a textile manufacturing town. They turned one of the factories into a really nice apartment complex called..fittingly...The Woolen Mill. That is a creative use of existing resources.
in my old city neighborhood there were several industrial buildings, quite large ones, that have eventually been converted to loft apartments. at this point I think there’s maybe one or two industrial buildings left, abandoned, of course, but they are tucked away in the neighborhood and are not eyesores.
I think Rogar is correct. The problem won't be solved building housing where no one is going to buy them because there are no jobs. And hopefully the homebuilders are savvy enough to pick and choose where to build.
In San Francisco there's an odd coalition of anti new housing advocates. First the people who already own housing and don't want to see the astronomical value of it erode. Second minorities that don't want to see their neighborhoods change as non-minority people move in to new upscale housing in those neighborhoods. And the beyond absurd permitting process that includes strong power for people who want to oppose everything enables them to be quite successful in their NIMBYism. But we definitely need more housing across the bay area. We have school teachers and and bus drivers and fire fighters driving from Stockton and beyond because they can't afford housing closer in.
A flat $25,000 for new home buyers seems less than ideal. More logical would be a certain percentage of the price of the house. Unless the goal is to get people to move to places that currently aren't popular.
Both major candidates seem sadly enthusiastic for dirigisme. Trump thinks he’s smart enough to impose industrial policy and 20% tariffs. Harris, while apparently retreating from Medicare for all and federal job guarantees, wants price controls and a major housing role for the feds. Neither seems particularly interested in what Congress might think.
If we’re not careful, we may see a return to the semi-fascistic days of FDR, with enthusiastic mandarins and commissars monitoring the country’s economic hallways, and businesses pressured to post blue eagle placards to show their enthusiasm for the regime.
ApatheticNoMore
8-18-24, 2:17pm
I think that inflation has caused the housing crisis
I don't think it's inflation, but I think it's somewhat related, it's high interest rates right now. High interest rates are preventing construction (so my partner works in construction but his is strictly white collar work - an email job like me :laff:). High interest rates are causing housing not to be built right now, the whole construction industry seems in deep recession. I don't think the economy is in recession, I think that industry is. But I get kind of exasperated, if half the years the market is like "nope won't build, conditions not perfect" how are we ever going to maintain sufficient housing purely via market mechanisms? Another period of time the market wouldn't build was post 2008 and that is often given as one reason housing never kept up with population. And all this is on top of other conditions that may limit building even when we have ideal market conditions (zoning etc.). But anyway we also don't have ideal market conditions right now, subsidies for building isn't that crazy in a market that is broken by high interest rates, it's basically a counter-cyclical stimulus to the industry.
as has the wealthy investor "swoop-in" as you said, and also baby boomers stuck in their McMansions and unwilling to move, and also the high expectations for "starter homes" by young people etc. etc. It's a very complex issue.
If there actually isn't enough housing for people, and the number of housing just isn't sufficient and that is definitely the case here, then the problem is really just there isn't enough housing. And I absolutely 100% don't mean we need to build single family homes, building more apartments would probably be the best, multi-family is a better use of land. Condos are also multi-family and I have no problem with that ownership structure in theory (paying a mortgage rather than rent) but in PRACTICE ... some of condos built do seem at this point being use for speculation purposes and held empty by people who don't live in them. So again just build more apartments (help me out here, the rent is too damn high :laff: ). Actually more radical than that: build single room occupancy with bedrooms and bathrooms and nothing else. Do I want to live like that? Heck no! But I'm like maybe not the target market, the target market is those who would otherwise be homeless, students, those fleeing bad situations who just need a roof etc. etc..
The old growth forest argument is going to fall on deaf ears when people don't have a place to live. But what about wasteful use of resources? Does anyone seriously want to make the case that having a roof over one's head is a waste of resources? Because then they are seriously arguing we all become hunter gathers or something, because in modern society it's a basic need. And unless the people saying this are living in caves, um the hypocrisy argument is way overused, you can criticize society even if you live in it, but it might apply here. I do think old growth forests should be preserved, but homelessness is probably not the best way to do so.
As for the Harris proposal of giving money to local governments, while I think it's possible some states might use this money well, giving money to cities? Ugh. We have like several sales taxes going on now to fund dealing with homeless and almost no housing has been built, and noone seems really sure where the money went, and I'm not likely to vote to renew the tax even.
I caught a bit of the morning talk shows where they were talking with Tammy Duckworth as some sort of democratic policy representative. When asked how all of the housing proposals would be paid for, she said from the elimination of Trump's tax breaks for the wealthy. I'm not sure how that equation would balance?
I'm relatively uneducated over Airbnb. Are wealthy investors really grabbing up enough to affect overall housing availability? It would seem like that would take quite a few. I don't know of any in my modestly priced immediate neighborhood, although wealthy investors house flipping is common. In a college town nearby they are limited by local zoning, which seems like an easy solution if it's an issue.
I caught a bit of the morning talk shows where they were talking with Tammy Duckworth as some sort of democratic policy representative. When asked how all of the housing proposals would be paid for, she said from the elimination of Trump's tax breaks for the wealthy. I'm not sure how that equation would balance?
I'm relatively uneducated over Airbnb. Are wealthy investors really grabbing up enough to affect overall housing availability? It would seem like that would take quite a few. I don't know of any in my modestly priced immediate neighborhood, although wealthy investors house flipping is common. In a college town nearby they are limited by local zoning, which seems like an easy solution if it's an issue.
You hear that “we’ll make the rich pay” thing a lot. But without much by way of specifics on how much “the rich” might reasonably be expected to yield. It’s a sort of magical thinking that plays well with a certain class of voter.
frugal-one
8-18-24, 4:08pm
You hear that “we’ll make the rich pay” thing a lot. But without much by way of specifics on how much “the rich” might reasonably be expected to yield. It’s a sort of magical thinking that plays well with a certain class of voter.
If I remember correctly, Elizabeth Warren had a proposal to do just that! I don't remember the specifics but it was a small amount the "rich" had to contribute to balance things out.
ETA: Here it is... https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/ultra-millionaire-tax
There are many many factors that conspire together to cause housing to be unaffordable.
In my local area:
- the permitting process is taking ~12 months, once a fully-completed application is submitted
- development plans are often challenged by local environmental organizations, causing delays of 0-24 months, since our local court system is backed up
- the height limit for buildings restricts you to basically 2-story construction
- development codes require that a substantial portion of each lot not be developed, because "nature"
- development costs for construction alone (not including site-development costs) are running $800 sq. ft. for modest-quality construction (no fancy-schmancy marble counters, no high-end appliances, no custom cabinetry).
- if you live in the village, you can connect to the sewer system, for a cost of $12k for the connection fee, and about $8k for the site-development work. If you live outside the sewer district, you are looking at $30k-$90k for your septic solution, depending on your terrain.
Pencil out what it costs you to build a 750 sq. ft. Levittown-style house....
Include then the rather substantial taxes we charge here on real estate transactions, to provide funding for land preservation, and affordable housing...
And also consider that it is essentially impossible to build a guest-cottage/mother-in-law-cottage/"accessory dwelling unit" here, because "we don't want sprawl"... The County has a lottery and hands out about 6 permits a year, if they remember to run the lottery, which some years they don't.
If I remember correctly, Elizabeth Warren had a proposal to do just that! I don't remember the specifics but it was a small amount the "rich" had to contribute to balance things out.
ETA: Here it is... https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/ultra-millionaire-tax
Apart from its questionable constitutionality, a federal wealth tax presents some interesting legal and technical problems for a new valuation bureaucracy. Pricing art collections, yachts and the unrealized gains on investment securities and real estate will occupy a generation of lawyers, accountants and assorted experts. Shifting assets to friendlier shores will also become a thriving industry.
iris lilies
8-18-24, 8:54pm
Apart from its questionable constitutionality, a federal wealth tax presents some interesting legal and technical problems for a new valuation bureaucracy. Pricing art collections, yachts and the unrealized gains on investment securities and real estate will occupy a generation of lawyers, accountants and assorted experts. Shifting assets to friendlier shores will also become a thriving industry.
these countries have done away with their wealth tax after finding it unworkable:
“…Many developed countries have repealed these taxes in recent years, including Austria (1994); Denmark and Germany (1997); the Netherlands (2001); Finland, Iceland, and Luxembourg (2006); and Sweden (2007). [3] France was the last country to repeal its wealth tax in 2018…”
now only three European countries have a wealth tax and a couple of those tax only selected assets.
It’s not workable, but in the land of magical thinking, sure why not.
Has anyone crunched the numbers on what would happen if investment income was charged the same tax rate as ‘earned’ income and if that same investment income also had to pay social security and Medicare taxes? And if people who have high ‘earned’ income had to pay social security taxes on all their ‘earned’ income? Just those changes could probably go a long way towards solving the budget concerns that ‘balanced budget’ people worry about.
As someone who only pays social security taxes the first half of the year I’d rather pay the full year if it meant social security wouldn’t go broke at the same time I’m ready to start collecting. No I can’t live off social security but I also can’t live comfortably in retirement without it.
If I'm getting JD's agenda right, and possibly Donald's, the plan would be to close or severely restrict the border, deport millions of illegals or other immigrants, and fill the job vacuum with American citizens, which I can guess comes down to us white folk who generally won't do cement work, roofing, or landscaping. When employment is already near full. And the cost of goods and services won't be affected.
iris lilies
8-19-24, 1:29pm
Has anyone crunched the numbers on what would happen if investment income was charged the same tax rate as ‘earned’ income and if that same investment income also had to pay social security and Medicare taxes? And if people who have high ‘earned’ income had to pay social security taxes on all their ‘earned’ income? Just those changes could probably go a long way towards solving the budget concerns that ‘balanced budget’ people worry about.
As someone who only pays social security taxes the first half of the year I’d rather pay the full year if it meant social security wouldn’t go broke at the same time I’m ready to start collecting. No I can’t live off social security but I also can’t live comfortably in retirement without it.
i’m not dismissing your proposal out of hand, and I’m not being disrespectful, but I can assure you that billions of words have been written in proposals and studies having to do with new tax strategies. I’m sure your ideas have been examined. Why don’t you search for them and tell us what you find.
ApatheticNoMore
8-19-24, 1:42pm
and fill the job vacuum with American citizens, which I can guess comes down to us white folk who generally won't do cement work, roofing, or landscaping.
won't at this point but that wasn't always true. It was a deliberate switch to immigrants. So I've known people who fled back to the construction trades from office work when they got sick of office work back when there was some employment there. Not saying it's better than office work, that's individual, who am I to say. But there may just be enough other work at this point (employment nearly full) that people don't have to do construction etc. if they don't want to. But I bet that unionized construction work (for govt) is not running off illegal immigrants even now. I do think construction is different than say agriculture, agriculture has been immigrants for a very very very long time. That is work you won't get people to do maybe.
iris lilies
8-19-24, 5:42pm
won't at this point but that wasn't always true. It was a deliberate switch to immigrants. So I've known people who fled back to the construction trades from office work when they got sick of office work back when there was some employment there. Not saying it's better than office work, that's individual, who am I to say. But there may just be enough other work at this point (employment nearly full) that people don't have to do construction etc. if they don't want to. But I bet that unionized construction work (for govt) is not running off illegal immigrants even now. I do think construction is different than say agriculture, agriculture has been immigrants for a very very very long time. That is work you won't get people to do maybe.
there is already a well established pipeline for “green “immigrant workers meaning people in the green industry. If additional workers are needed, just push through more worker applications in the already established process.
I don’t know if there is a similar process for low skilled construction work workers.
I’m going to start another separate thread about immigration because it’s a big topic.
On investment income, particularly capital gains, it is "complicated".
For example:
https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/inflation-adjusting-capital-gains/
On investment income, particularly capital gains, it is "complicated".
For example:
https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/inflation-adjusting-capital-gains/
Very true. A real loss can get transformed into a nominal gain for tax purposes.
i’m not dismissing your proposal out of hand, and I’m not being disrespectful, but I can assure you that billions of words have been written in proposals and studies having to do with new tax strategies. I’m sure your ideas have been examined. Why don’t you search for them and tell us what you find.
https://www.alternet.org/the-real-fix-for-social-security/
I see the candidate’s press bodyguards are scolding us for thinking she’s proposing price controls.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/21/business/economy/harris-price-gouging-ban-groceries.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/08/20/kamala-harris-price-gouging-proposal/?pwapi_token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9. eyJyZWFzb24iOiJnaWZ0IiwibmJmIjoxNzI0MjEyODAwLCJpc3 MiOiJzdWJzY3JpcHRpb25zIiwiZXhwIjoxNzI1NTk1MTk5LCJp YXQiOjE3MjQyMTI4MDAsImp0aSI6IjkwOTAwNWFmLTgyZmUtNG E0MS05ODNiLTg4NjU0YzFkYTQ5ZSIsInVybCI6Imh0dHBzOi8v d3d3Lndhc2hpbmd0b25wb3N0LmNvbS9idXNpbmVzcy8yMDI0Lz A4LzIwL2thbWFsYS1oYXJyaXMtcHJpY2UtZ291Z2luZy1wcm9w b3NhbC8ifQ.mh3sU99Uzuakb8QfiQne50sgR6_DCQ9lSFdsDty 1fbQ
I see the candidate’s press bodyguards are scolding us for thinking she’s proposing price controls.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/21/business/economy/harris-price-gouging-ban-groceries.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/08/20/kamala-harris-price-gouging-proposal/?pwapi_token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9. eyJyZWFzb24iOiJnaWZ0IiwibmJmIjoxNzI0MjEyODAwLCJpc3 MiOiJzdWJzY3JpcHRpb25zIiwiZXhwIjoxNzI1NTk1MTk5LCJp YXQiOjE3MjQyMTI4MDAsImp0aSI6IjkwOTAwNWFmLTgyZmUtNG E0MS05ODNiLTg4NjU0YzFkYTQ5ZSIsInVybCI6Imh0dHBzOi8v d3d3Lndhc2hpbmd0b25wb3N0LmNvbS9idXNpbmVzcy8yMDI0Lz A4LzIwL2thbWFsYS1oYXJyaXMtcHJpY2UtZ291Z2luZy1wcm9w b3NhbC8ifQ.mh3sU99Uzuakb8QfiQne50sgR6_DCQ9lSFdsDty 1fbQ
It's just a much-needed attempt at clarification which I imagine will be explained in greater depth over time. I, too, am mystified as to how a ban on price-gouging will be executed but I don't consider myself scolded.
It's just a much-needed attempt at clarification which I imagine will be explained in greater depth over time. I, too, am mystified as to how a ban on price-gouging will be executed but I don't consider myself scolded.
I somehow doubt clarity is the objective.
They want to generate vaguely positive feelings without revealing how the sausage will be made. At least until after the election.
I somehow doubt clarity is the objective.
They want to generate vaguely positive feelings without revealing how the sausage will be made. At least until after the election.
Kamala's embryonic policies are still questionable to be sure, at least to me, but I go back time and time again about the contagion of a positive outlook on the wellbeing of the country. Policies matter, and of course "it's the economy stupid" in large part, but right now I'm anticipating a tasty sausage over the reheated TV dinner that Trump is serving.
Kamala's embryonic policies are still questionable to be sure, at least to me, but I go back time and time again about the contagion of a positive outlook on the wellbeing of the country. Policies matter, and of course "it's the economy stupid" in large part, but right now I'm anticipating a tasty sausage over the reheated TV dinner that Trump is serving.
You would think after four years as VP she could offer more than a few inchoate thoughts on the economy. I think we can look forward to several weeks of “joy” and “freedom” and pay no attention to the political consultants behind the curtain.
I somehow doubt clarity is the objective.
If clarity was the objective the media would have to start with trump. He's way less clear than Kamala about what his administration would do.
You would think after four years as VP she could offer more than a few inchoate thoughts on the economy. I think we can look forward to several weeks of “joy” and “freedom” and pay no attention to the political consultants behind the curtain.
And after four years as president you'd think the same about trump.
And after four years as president you'd think the same about trump.
Actually Trump has been quite explicit. What he can do legally or what he is just fibbing about are different issues. From various sources.
On day one, I will sign a new executive order to cut federal funding for any school pushing critical race theory, transgender insanity.
On day one, we will throw out Bidenomics, and we will reinstate a thing called MAGAnomics. (I'm seeing tax cuts for the rich?)
On day one of the Trump presidency, I'm restoring the travel ban, suspending refugee admissions...
He has pledged to launch the biggest deportation operation of illegal migrants in US history on his first day in office.
Trump claims he will "stop inflation by stopping the invasion," arguing that his immigration crackdown will reduce housing costs and other expenses.
...tariffs of "more than 10 percent" on all imports.
I will repeal crooked Joe Biden's insane electric vehicle mandate and we will 'drill, baby, drill,'" Trump told supporters in Wisconsin, using an old Republican slogan.
"Energy costs will come down very quickly," he vowed. "In many cases we'll be cutting your energy costs in half."
If clarity was the objective the media would have to start with trump. He's way less clear than Kamala about what his administration would do.
I think we have a pretty clear picture, ugly though it may be, of what Trump is about.
In the case of Harris, we have a better idea of what she used to stand for that she no longer does. At least if her staffers and proxies are to be believed. I suppose if she wants to reverse herself yet again it would be easy enough to toss a few staffers under the bus and proceed. Even when she ventures to say anything remotely substantive, there’s a sort of media praetorian guard rushing to tell us we misunderstood her. Half a year ago, they were writing about their concerns about her political incompetence. Now it’s rapturous applause. What’s really changed?
At some point, the greasepaint will rub off and the media will run out of nitrous oxide. She may already be in office by then. Once you drag the Trojan Horse through the gate, it’s too late.
Elections for president are not often won by candidates who focus on being a policy wonk. Just ask Hillary Clinton. She was the wonkiest candidate of my lifetime. Joe biden tried to use facts and policies in his recent debate and was completely overwhelmed by the vomit of lies and meanness spewing from trump’s mouth. Trying to counter trump’s verbal puke with policy details is a losing proposition. This particular election will be won by Harris if she appeals to enough democrats and independents. Other than tax cuts for rich people and spending lots on the military I don’t remember much about Reagan’s
Candidacy other than ‘morning in America.’ And we all remember Gingrich’s ‘contract with America’ but does anyone remember the details? My memory of it was of a bunch of vague platitudes about good, and limited, governance.
Elections for president are not often won by candidates who focus on being a policy wonk. Just ask Hillary Clinton. She was the wonkiest candidate of my lifetime. Joe biden tried to use facts and policies in his recent debate and was completely overwhelmed by the vomit of lies and meanness spewing from trump’s mouth. Trying to counter trump’s verbal puke with policy details is a losing proposition. This particular election will be won by Harris if she appeals to enough democrats and independents. Other than tax cuts for rich people and spending lots on the military I don’t remember much about Reagan’s
Candidacy other than ‘morning in America.’ And we all remember Gingrich’s ‘contract with America’ but does anyone remember the details? My memory of it was of a bunch of vague platitudes about good, and limited, governance.
I think Clinton triangulated away from wonkishness after her double secret healthcare plan cratered. Then she shifted to a combo of smug patrician deploring the deplorables for some audiences and the fake-accent condescension for the hoi polloi. Almost worked.
The Harris strategy seems to be to memory-hole her past and focus on a feel-good show about nothing. It might be effective against the Trump rage machine.
Hopefully some intrepid reporter will get Harris to share her stance on Hannibal Lector. And the electric boat/shark issue. These are very important subjects that she has been silent on. Trump has been much more transparent on these topics.
ApatheticNoMore
8-24-24, 2:34pm
Elections for president are not often won by candidates who focus on being a policy wonk.
this country is too stupid to have a candidate run on policy and win. If people wanted policy Bernie Sanders would be in the white house (or maybe Elizabeth Warren if you prefer the technocratic). Could they have passed all their policy? Well no, there is congress, stuff has to get through congress. That's also a problem with a presidential candidate running on policy, they don't actually have the ability to pass any but a small % of it without congress. That's why to some extent it's more rational to choose: who can push executive orders (but these are limited), who can pressure congress best, who is likely to lead to enough people getting elected to congress that they can actually pass policy, who can bully pulpit for their agenda the best? If you are more pessimistic than that, who will at least block bad policy from getting enacted with the veto most completely?
But it's not like people don't ever get a chance to choose candidates who highlight policies if that's what they really wanted, but it's CLEARLY not something they care about when Trump has been running for President for 3 Presidential cycles and Biden was the 2020 Dem nominee in a competitive primary. As long as voters needed to win behave that way, what can anyone do but cater to their awful taste? Cater to the lowest common denominator undecided voters in a few swing states. And they WOULDN'T BE that undecided if policy was what they cared about!!! (unless they are just some single issue voter waiting for their single issue to be addressed where it's an issue neither party even kind of cares about, then they are just out of luck).
littlebittybobby
8-24-24, 5:24pm
Ah, such a capitalist!
in my tiny town here we have a tremendous need for housing. That is because all the wealthy capitalists swoop in and buy any modest home and turn it into an Airbnb. And then there is very very little in the way of apartment complexes.
Down the hill from me is a giant ugly industrial abandoned building that city fathers foolishly allowed to be built in the mid-50s in the middle of my residential neighborhood. My God it is ugly. Someone has put forth a plan to turn it into loft Apartments. Perhaps that plan will be successful, but it’s hard for me to see how it can be a viable plan economically. But I hope he succeeds. okay----i personally think that building you are referring to is BEAUTIFUL. Not only that, I have proposed several ideas for using it, without turning it into yet another Gentrification project. It does need a nice paint job; perhaps a mural on the south side ond okay---some landscaping. But it should be used for commercial and industrial purposes--light industry; not a dynamite factory or sawmill, etc. Yup. Why does everything need to be an antiques shop or bistro or art gallery or upscale apartments? That's the kind of CRAP the renovators are doing here, and who needs it, besides limousine liberals? Not mee. Hope that helps you kids some.
okay----i personally think that building you are referring to is BEAUTIFUL. Not only that, I have proposed several ideas for using it, without turning it into yet another Gentrification project. It does need a nice paint job; perhaps a mural on the south side ond okay---some landscaping. But it should be used for commercial and industrial purposes--light industry; not a dynamite factory or sawmill, etc. Yup. Why does everything need to be an antiques shop or bistro or art gallery or upscale apartments? That's the kind of CRAP the renovators are doing here, and who needs it, besides limousine liberals? Not mee. Hope that helps you kids some.
I like your ideas, bobby... why can't it be both? I love the idea of a mural! What would that look like?
iris lilies
8-25-24, 1:37pm
I like your ideas, bobby... why can't it be both? I love the idea of a mural! What would that look like?
ummmm…. neither of you have to look at this building as I do. My fondest hope for it is that it is torn down, but that’s not going to happen because the city already went for a government grant – your tax dollars at work – to tear it down but did not get that.
So we are stuck with it. At this point what I hope to happen is that they put in large windows, a new roof, and paint it a color that recedes. no one is going to use it as a factory building that’s just not viable. And you have to take my word for it that Hermann REALLY needs rental housing units.
littlebittybobby
8-26-24, 2:13pm
ummmm…. neither of you have to look at this building as I do. My fondest hope for it is that it is torn down, but that’s not going to happen because the city already went for a government grant – your tax dollars at work – to tear it down but did not get that.
So we are stuck with it. At this point what I hope to happen is that they put in large windows, a new roof, and paint it a color that recedes. no one is going to use it as a factory building that’s just not viable. And you have to take my word for it that Hermann REALLY needs rental housing units. okay---I think that building would make one hell of a body shop. Or else a custom church furniture shop, like the one on the bluff in DC, Nowhereville, that employs prolly a dozen people full-time for the last 60 years. Actual jobs that don't cater ta agerculchure. Yup. Or would you rather have it something like nine-eleven missipissi, when you can have a nice meal for $100? plus a gratuity for the thugs you encounter in the lot? Ha. Hope that helps you some.
iris lilies
8-26-24, 3:12pm
okay---I think that building would make one hell of a body shop. Or else a custom church furniture shop, like the one on the bluff in DC, Nowhereville, that employs prolly a dozen people full-time for the last 60 years. Actual jobs that don't cater ta agerculchure. Yup. Or would you rather have it something like nine-eleven missipissi, when you can have a nice meal for $100? plus a gratuity for the thugs you encounter in the lot? Ha. Hope that helps you some.
I would be thrilled with any restaurant coming into Hermann that is as reliably good as that restaurant for which you have a strange obsession.
And you have to take my word for it that Hermann REALLY needs rental housing units.
Here's the Woolen Mill in Winooski, VT. Would this be a viable outcome for the Hermann factory building?
https://woolen-mill.com/gallery/
Here is what it looked like before:
https://woolen-mill.com/history/
iris lilies
8-26-24, 6:18pm
Here's the Woolen Mill in Winooski, VT. Would this be a viable outcome for the Hermann factory building?
https://woolen-mill.com/gallery/
Here is what it looked like before:
https://woolen-mill.com/history/
our Hermann building looks nothing like those old Victorian factories. We had many of those factories in St. Louis turned into residential lofts, including several directly in my old neighborhood. I lived a block from 2 of them. They have brick walls and old growth wood beams and big window openings.
our Hermann building is made of cement block and was put up in the late 50s/early 60s. There’s nothing of architectural interest in it
littlebittybobby
8-26-24, 8:11pm
our Hermann building looks nothing like those old Victorian factories. We had many of those factories in St. Louis turned into residential lofts, including several directly in my old neighborhood. I lived a block from 2 of them. They have brick walls and old growth wood beams and big window openings.
our Hermann building is made of cement block and was put up in the late 50s/early 60s. There’s nothing of architectural interest in it .....nothing of architectural interest......Ha. Just that it's a modern concrete block commercial building, no doubt with steel trusses, that would prolly cost $500,000 to build, today. Just trying to think why an 18th-century frontier building would be more worthy of preservation???? But yeah---I'd like to have that building, except that there's prolly a bunch of wine-drinking nimby's in the vicinity that would complain, just for for something to "do". Oh I know---they could make it into a lirrrrarry; the nearby lirrrry here started out as a grocery store, then furniture store, then a lirrrrarrrberry. Sure, that's it. Yup. Even put a small shop up front that purveys tea & crumpets, just like the one here. . Ha. Thankk meee.
littlebittybobby
9-5-24, 8:34pm
okay----i came up with another possible use for that unoccupied building up there in Herman that Faux is constantly griping about. With some gummmint grants, it could be made into a Homeless Shelter. Yup. Housing, in out of the rain and cold for those who have nowhere to go. Yup. 3 hot meals a day, and also FREE medical care. Cable TV, and cold A?C. That way, they won't hafta sleep behing a dumpster, somewhere. Yup.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.