If you're really not a troll and genuinely believe that the Democrats have the key to a better America for ALL, provide the facts and evidence that they and their policies have what it takes to achieve that

[Independent4Life]

@Publius

@Eagle-Keeper

Republicans like to talk about slashing social spending, but to balance the budget we’d need to completely eliminate all funding for veterans’ benefits, child credit payments, the earned income tax credit, school lunches, disability benefits, K-12 schooling, health research, unemployment benefits, food stamps, homeland security, infrastructure, embassy security, federal prisons, border security, and much more.

It’s worse than that. Even if you eliminated ALL discretionary spending, including ALL defense spending - zeroed it ALL out - we would still be running in the red.

In 4 years half the total US tax revenue will go towards paying the interest on the debt, in 9 the entire US tax revenue will go towards interest on the debt.

Dont see how we get out of this. Thanks TRUMP and BIDEN for driving us full speed towards total collapse

[Gaius]

Setting aside the possibility of a bubble,
(for now),
Yes asset appreciation is real and it definitely benefits those who, by 2022 or so, had already accumulated assets.

Those still relying on work-related income however, are facing a bleaker scenario.

[SixFoot]

[Gaius]

There is definitely a problem going on,

.
.
.
But it’s hard to blame Biden-Harris as the cause. More likely they can be blamed for things like pretending it doesn’t exist. (And perhaps making it worse.)

[Eagle-Keeper]

@FreeAndClear

Your thread seems to be a bit of everything so is there something you want to discuss?

Here’s something that I came across today:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/opinion-the-circular-logic-of-kamalanomics/ar-AA1qMM1E?ocid=msedgntp&pc=LCTS&cvid=dc5474c45fac4f669ae7f3959d7350dc&ei=286

Harris touted her proposal to build 3 million new houses in four years and create a $25,000 housing credit for first-time buyers. Presumably, the new 3 million houses will be subsidized by the federal government (otherwise they would be built anyway), while the new homebuyer credit will do the same on the market’s demand side. …

The average starter home now costs $240,000. To build 3 million houses would require $720 billion, because no builder is going to undertake such projects without a full cost guarantee from the federal government.

All this also assumes that there would be ample building supplies and construction workers available to build an additional 3 million houses over the next four years, beyond the houses already planned. That’s a big assumption. America’s annual new home construction is 1.4 million, so Harris’s proposed 3 million new units is an increase of more than 100 percent.

Harris also assumes that a federal program could somehow find local building sites and cut through all local regulations. Harris forgets that there are reasons why the houses she wants are not being built already.

It’s a good read. Clearly Harris isn’t providing any real details as she’s just doing what all liberal politicians do is simply promising people “free stuff” from government in order to try and buy votes. Here’s another take on this:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/5-potential-problems-with-kamala-harris-housing-proposal/ar-AA1qUx3u?ocid=msedgntp&pc=LCTS&cvid=397d9c4969864803a4c7c24b8e71d3db&ei=37

[WuWei]

Let’s tax you more.

Or better yet, you can just voluntarily pay more. Show receipts.

[WuWei]

@FreeAndClear

@Eagle-Keeper

@FreeAndClear

Taxing the rich into oblivion isn’t a solution. But neither are continuous tax cuts for them either.

Here’s something that often comes up in this discussion:

MSN

The idea that high-income Americans in the 1950s paid significantly more taxes is largely a myth. While the top marginal tax rate was 91%, the effective tax rate — the actual percentage of income paid in taxes — was much lower due to deductions and tax shelters.

That’s not the argument you think it was. If the effective rate was in fact much smaller then your point would support bringing it back

Bring back the deductions and tax shelters?

[WuWei]

@tnt

No. I want a progressive bracket system but all income treated the same.

So wages, cap gains, interest, dividends, ertc…all taxed under the same rates.

What percentage of people pay no tax? What percenyage of resources do they use?

[WuWei]

Cut spending.

[tnt]

@WuWei

Let’s tax you more.

Or better yet, you can just voluntarily pay more. Show receipts.

If we tax all income the same, we can lower everyone’s rates.

[WuWei]

Who told you that? It’s a lie.

[tnt]

@WuWei

Who told you that? It’s a lie.

Show your work.

[Eagle-Keeper]

@WuWei

@tnt

No. I want a progressive bracket system but all income treated the same.

So wages, cap gains, interest, dividends, ertc…all taxed under the same rates.

What percentage of people pay no tax? What percenyage of resources do they use?

The top 50% paid about 98% of the taxes:

Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2024 Update

That’s a crazy number. Wonder what the numbers were in the 1960’s?

[Eagle-Keeper]

@WuWei

Yes. What you have to realize is there is no vision, just piecemealing from silos with no concern for consequences. A buffet.

It’s the fatal flaw of progressivism.

Crit theory ignores complexity and system theories. It has to.

One thing is for sure, they completely ignore the cost of an open border:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/how-congress-allocates-billions-to-fund-the-border-crisis-nationwide/ar-AA1qXmOE?ocid=msedgntp&pc=LCTS&cvid=16ec712888fe4af1a711e08e7b18cfbc&ei=48

[Eagle-Keeper]

@WuWei

@mbus

Policies are theories. And for theories to be made manifest they need statutes or regulations. And for statutes and regulations to be passed there needs to be compromise; this because of our beautiful and elegant separation of powers, representative government, states rights and judicial review. All this to say, it is almost impossible to assess the efficacy of a policy in its nascent, undiluted form, in a vacuum over the required time necessary for such assessment. Perhaps looking at other countries can provide some valid assessment, but as the USA is a constant and dynamic work in progress, looking here to accurately evaluate policy is rarely 100% conclusive.

That would be true, if the policies were new and not a continuation of failed belief systems.

Here’s a classic example:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/kamala-harris-wants-to-take-on-price-gouging-it-s-hard-to-find-agreement-on-what-it-even-is/ar-AA1rpmCx?ocid=msedgntp&pc=LCTS&cvid=2b94c4e42148417f9530b5724f4f6674&ei=57

It would be great if we all were sick of politicians just speaking out of their ass simply just to buy votes.

[Eagle-Keeper]

@Gaius

Setting aside the possibility of a bubble,
(for now),

I thought you would find this interesting:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/handouts-from-us-government-now-make-up-nearly-fifth-of-americans-income/ar-AA1rtZ35?ocid=msedgntp&pc=LCTS&cvid=3074b26bd757426abf2cdea9cb1c9ea9&ei=16

US government benefit handouts now make up nearly a fifth of Americans’ income – more than double the proportion in the 1970s.

An ageing population and soaring healthcare costs means that the average American receives 17.6 per cent of their income from the government, according to a report by the Economic Innovation Group (EIG) think tank. This figure stood at 8 per cent in 1970.

The really crazy part is that many Dems want to use immigration as an additional means to grow the welfare state:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/majority-of-non-citizen-households-illegals-green-card-holders-on-taxpayer-funded-welfare-study/ar-AA1m3Nhj#:~:text=A%20hefty%2059%20percent%20of%20households%20headed%20by

[Liberty323]

Net worth, stock market, etc are WAAAAY up in dollars, which is why at the same time prices of everything have gone WAAAAY up.

[Gaius]

@Liberty323

Net worth, stock market, etc are WAAAAY up in dollars, which is why at the same time prices of everything have gone WAAAAY up.

You bring up a good point.
I often use Jan 2020 (late pre-pamdemic) as a starting-point/comparison-point for many thing economic.

Choosing that one again (only because I have done so manytimes in the past)
We see that the S&P 500 has increased almost 70% in the 4.75 years since them.
—> 70% in 4-5 short years? Wow! That’s a great return. (blue line below)
.
.
.
The real (inflation-adjusted) S&P during that time has risen (only) 40%. (red line below)
That works out to 7.1% per year, which is only a little better than the post-war average of 7% per year.

Of course there is a fly in the ointment.
During that same time real GDP grew by (only) 12% total and corporate profits grew (only) 30%.

So, umm, I don’t know if Jan 2020 is the right starting point to use.
(I chose it only becasue I ahve used it in the past.)
But if it is then, both of the following are true:

• After adjusting for inflation,stock market returns in recent years have not been substantially better than the post-war average.
• The underlying trends in (each) GDP and corporate profits suggest that even those non-impressive returns are unsustainable.

[Gaius]

@Eagle-Keeper

An ageing population and soaring healthcare costs

Make no mistake about it.

• In addition to aging population and soaring healthcare cost, the US government has simply gotten more generous with your money.

It is not because of aging and healtchcare costs. They just deciced to spend more.
It’s not because of a bad economy, they just decided to spend more.

See below

[Liberty323]

Right. These people jumping for joy about how much their home or portfolio went up in value the past 4 years aren’t taking the money printer into consideration.