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

[Seano]

eh, I don't make the decisions, the politicians do. That said, economically, I've always been worse off with a democrat in the white house. That makes my choice an easy one. Could I say "the right should do this and this instead"? Sure. Of course. Does that mean I'm going to throw my support to a side that makes things even worse? Obviously not. We pick the lesser of two evils. We don't have a lot of options. The bad choice or the worse choice.

 

[Jack V Savage]

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.

Well, it's just not true. Real wages keep going up, hunger keeps coming down, properly measured poverty keeps coming down--and around the world, we're seeing huge declines in extreme poverty. There has never been a better time to be alive.

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!"

I don't think telling the truth here is any more grandiose than making false claims that are the opposite (e.g., "well on the whole things are worse than ever!").

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.

Wrong. People retire earlier (I mean, retirement itself isn't really something that used to be attainable), they work easier jobs that they enjoy more, etc. Child labor is down. Elderly labor is down. Prime age men work less. Women started working more and there was a multi-decade trend in that direction, though it has leveled out. Hourly wages, adjusted for inflation, have never been higher (and the safety net has never been more generous for non-workers).

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 half money for emergencies.

Well, even that is misleading as homes are bigger than ever and we have fewer people per home. It's kind of the same error people make with healthcare--it used to be cheaper but that was because it wasn't really comparable. People just couldn't get treatments we take for granted at any price. Now they can but it costs a lot. Also, it's definitely not true that the average household is living paycheck to paycheck or that half don't have money for emergencies. Median (not average, which is higher) household net worth in America is close to $200K, and the median savings account is $8K.

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.

Headline costs, which most people don't pay. And again, more people are going to college than ever.

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"

Well, I'm saying that people are better off economically. Even if you're completely indifferent to anyone who isn't a white male, things are better than ever.

 

[Sinister]

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.

You know what the real answer is. When have economists EVER agreed with corporatism? When have they ever concluded that right wing policy is productive? Literally every time the US Republican party gears up to make yet another round of tax cuts for the wealthy + de-regulation, every economist screams from up on high with warning of how insanely stupid it is, and they're ignored. Fortunately they're not jailed or killed, yet. That's when the party ramps up the culture war bullsh*t so the working class will keep fighting amongst ourselves while our pockets are picked by billionaire con artists. The rage of the working class who vote Republican is directed at women, minority "crime waves," and immigrants while they pine for the authoritarian rule of a known fraud (and sexual predator) because he promises he is anti-system (the same system he capitalized on), and will return them to their "glory days" of societal regression in ways that address their insecurities.

You ever see members of congregations of faith healers discuss why they're not healed yet? Or the faith healers themselves questioned as to why they dont work in Hospitals? Deep down both parties know its nonsense, one side is just desperate and the other is trying to monetize the desperation to line their own pockets. When you see people avoiding the discussion of economics it's because there is no substance to their economic ideologies. They're as empty as "thoughts and prayers."

 

[Prefect]

And taking credit for policies of their opposition, because their base isnt aware of how long it takes for policies to take effect.

Remember Romneycare was basically Obamacare 0.1?

The republican party doesn't run with a platform because republican voters don't care about a platform. This has been the entire focus of the republican party for the last 8 years, abortion, trannies, anti-lgbt, anti-immigrants, tax cuts for the wealthy, undo Obamacare and inheritance tax. None of which except abortion and Obamacare has any meaningful impact on the general public. I keep telling myself that there must be a republican platform that I would at least partially support but there is just nothing.

If anyone was looking for a dark background group that is run controlled by the rich, it has to be the republican party because someone has to be supporting them. The only thing that makes any sense is that they are a group that protects the rich while only gibber jabbing about trannies and gays non-stop. It is the only way anything makes sense. Trannies and gays are the vote grabbers for supporting the party of the rich as abortion was in the past. Party of me wonders if some from the GOP did not want to touch abortion because it was such a reliable tent pole for the part to get votes by default. Now what, every state can if they want basically regulate abortion of existence. That means another tent pole needs to be found, trannies.

 

[Scheme]

Remember Romneycare was basically Obamacare 0.1?

The republican party doesn't run with a platform because republican voters don't care about a platform. This has been the entire focus of the republican party for the last 8 years, abortion, trannies, anti-lgbt, anti-immigrants, tax cuts for the wealthy, undo Obamacare and inheritance tax. None of which except abortion and Obamacare has any meaningful impact on the general public. I keep telling myself that there must be a republican platform that I would at least partially support but there is just nothing.

If anyone was looking for a dark background group that is run controlled by the rich, it has to be the republican party because someone is has to be supporting them. The only thing that makes any sense is that they are a group that protects the rich while only gibber jabbing about trannies and gays non-stop. It is the only way anything makes sense. Trannies and gays are the vote grabbers for supporting the party of the rich.

Cool fan fiction bro, except they have a 67 page platform and it isn't hard to find:

https://prod-static.gop.com/media/Resolution_Platform.pdf

Trump's platform:

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/agenda47

As far as your shadowy cabal theory, Joe Biden raised more than twice as much in terms of dark money than Trump in 2020:

‘Dark money’ topped $1 billion in 2020, largely boosting Democrats

The 2020 election saw more than $1 billion in dark money driven by an explosion of secret donations boosting Democrats.

www.opensecrets.org

Dark money being defined as:

What is Dark Money?​

“Dark money” refers to spending meant to influence political outcomes where the source of the money is not disclosed. Here’s how dark money makes its way into elections:

• Politically active nonprofits such as 501(c)(4)s are generally under no legal obligation to disclose their donors even if they spend to influence elections. When they choose not to reveal their sources of funding, they are considered dark money groups.
• Opaque nonprofits and shell companies may give unlimited amounts of money to super PACs. While super PACs are legally required to disclose their donors, some of these groups are effectively dark money outlets when the bulk of their funding cannot be traced back to the original donor.

Keep your fan fictions to yourself buddy.

 

[no fat chicks]

If Democrat policies are so amazing.... Why is California such a clusterfuck?

California keeps its title as having the nation’s highest poverty rate​

California keeps its title as having the nation's highest poverty rate

California has retained its position as having the worst poverty of any state, thanks to its very high living costs.

calmatters.org

It has the richest and poorest of the nation. And I'd assert the richest are DESPITE California policies.

The those with the means to do so are leaving if they can. So much so, the State implemented a new Tax businesses and people after they leave.


Its not working...


Gas Price are one of the highest impact costs to Lower and Middle Income families. The Ultra Rich in Cali don't give two shits about gas prices... Hell, Gavin is fixing to add new legislation to add another $.50/gallon



Current national average is around $3.25-$3.50... Almost $2 less than California


Does California pull back? Say hey, we need to help the low and middle income families who can barely keep their heads above water in our Most Expensive State in the Nation?

Or course not...

Californians already pay sky-high pump prices. It might get much worse.​

Californians already pay sky-high pump prices. It might get much worse.

A proposed update to the state’s low-carbon fuel standard could increase gasoline prices by nearly 50 cents a gallon next year — and more after that.

www.eenews.net

Make no mistake... California is THE example when Democrats have the super majority with no opposing political party to put them in check.

California's massive economy is still riding the coattails of the Tech Boom and its massive Financial/Real Estate Industry. But companies are leaving and politicians are panicking... Not surprising. It's hilarious, because Gavin Newsom was asked about people and businesses leaving years ago and he was unfazed... didn't think it was issue and wouldn't happen. What was his response?

"Where would they go?" Gavin Newsom

Well... He definitely knows now

The Exodus Begins: Tech Companies Leaving California in Droves​

https://tms-outsource.com/blog/posts/tech-companies-leaving-california/

New York, California Lose Firms Managing an Estimated $2 Trillion in Assets​

More Than 370 US Companies Have Moved Headquarters Since 2020, Report Finds​

https://www.costar.com/article/420490632/new-york-california-lose-firms-managing-an-estimated-2-trillion-in-assets

But please... Go ahead and keep telling us how Democrats don't run their cities into the ground

Lots of big corps move to shitty places all the time to save money. Is mexico better than America because Ford moved there?

 

[no fat chicks]

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!"

This is the stuff people should be losing their shit over.

 

[SKYNET]

am I crazy

 

[woodguyatl]

While I agree that the tax cuts were skewed to the rich, everyone got tax cuts under the plan. However those tax cuts are expiring in 2025, so it'll be a moot point anyways. Beyond that, US government tax receipts have greatly increased since 2018:

Federal government current tax receipts

Graph and download economic data for Federal government current tax receipts (W006RC1Q027SBEA) from Q1 1947 to Q4 2023 about receipts, tax, federal, government, GDP, and USA.

fred.stlouisfed.org

Real median wages also have been higher since the tax cuts have gone in effect (although I have doubts on the official inflation numbers):
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q

Perhaps the issue isn't with collecting money, but perhaps it's with the recent spending of that money:

Federal Government: Current Expenditures

Graph and download economic data for Federal Government: Current Expenditures (FGEXPND) from Q1 1947 to Q1 2024 about expenditures, federal, government, GDP, and USA.

fred.stlouisfed.org

The corporate tax cuts were the best part, making America a more desirable place to do business in a world of globalization. Perhaps that's the reason we are seeing the US outperforming most other first world countries around the world (except the ones that are even more corporate-friendly, like Ireland, Singapore, Middle Eastern countries, etc., which have had an insane growth of GDP per capita since they changed their fiscal policies and lowered their corporate tax rate to much below the US).

Let's take a look at some of the best countries by GDP per capita, and their corporate tax rates:

GDP per Capita - Worldometer

GDP per capita by country. List by GDP at PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) and by Nominal GDP. Ratio to World's average GDP per capita at PPP

www.worldometers.info

Luxembourg - 25%
Singapore - 17%
Ireland - 12.5%
Norway - 22%
Qatar - 10%
UAE - 9%
Switzerland - 15%
US - 21% (35% pre-Trump)

All had drastically lower tax rates than the US than before the tax cuts. If you look up GDP growth by first world countries, the ones with lower tax rates tend to be at the top, while the ones with higher tax rates tend to be at the bottom. Given that the US was so much higher than even many Nordic countries, this is a no-brainer in terms of competition in the global market.

Beyond the growth aspect and the fact that government tax revenue has gone up significantly, I wage a question to you: why are rich people keeping more of their money a bad thing? A person accumulating wealth is good for the most part, because of what they do with they've acquired it:

For every dollar a billionaire makes they are already taxed it on their income. It's also a net positive since society has said that the thing they made is somehow good enough for society to give them that dollar.
1. They can save the money in a bank - the bank then uses that money to invest in other businesses/give out loans which is a benefit to society
2. They can save it under their bed - this has a deflationary effect on the money supply, as it's essentially like destroying a dollar until they actually use that money
3. They can invest it - this is good because other businesses get that money and can spend it on more resources and employees, growing their business, the job market and the economy
4. They can spend it - this is the one legal action they can do with their money that has a bad side effect, as it removes products from the marketplace that would otherwise have been there and could increase prices as a result. However, the businesses they spend their money on will get the money and they will be able to employ more people, invest it back into their business, etc.

The only problems with billionaires is if they can pull off illegal schemes with their money, things like offshoring to avoid taxes or using it to lobby politicians to give them more power. But those are already illegal and just need more enforcement.

Also, the share of income taxes that the top 1% have paid has increased recently as well, so the whole basis of your argument has not played out in reality:

Yes, mostly. The corporate tax cuts don't expire. In order to pass the bill it had to not increase the debt. Republicans opted to do this by sunsetting the individual tax cuts. They could have sunset the corporate tax cuts instead but opted not to. Also, The deduction for state and local taxes will expand for high earners, as will the mortgage deduction for people who buy expensive homes.

 

[SKYNET]

look at my meme where you are the NPC soyjack and I am the actual anti-establishment chad:

Like, I swear to God I thought the guy on the left was going to be one of Juicy Smulliettes attackers

 

[Helden]

Republicans have been running on feelings and vibes rather than actual policies for many years now.

There is a reason for their popularity dropping big time whenever they actually manage to achieve any policy goals (see abortion bans)

 

[Bwagster]

I’m more worried about the 35 trillion national debt than republicans and democrats. Both sides have done this to us and are now averaging adding 1 trillion a year to the national debt . This has to be reversed or it’s bad for the future.

 

[My Spot]

Another day, another brackis response thread.

 

[blackheart]

I’m more worried about the 35 trillion national debt than republicans and democrats. Both sides have done this to us and are now averaging adding 1 trillion a year to the national debt . This has to be reversed or it’s bad for the future.

Yeah the debt is going to kill us any day now. Or so I've heard for the last 20 years. Still crossing my fingers!

 

[blackheart]

Another day, another brackis response thread.

That dude really did a number on you huh? I can't ever post a single thing without being accused of being him. He occupies space in the heads of like 2 dozen chuds on these boards.

 

[My Spot]

That dude really did a number on you huh? I can't ever post a single thing without being accused of being him. He occupies space in the heads of like 2 dozen chuds on these boards.

A bit dog always hollers.

 

[fedoriswar37]

Since Donald Trump's presidency it has been "mainstream" or pre-dominant in the Republican party to signal fake populist and anti-establishment rhetoric.

"Drain the swamp!"
"Down with the elites!"
"Down with the establishment!"

But am I crazy here, or have any of you other leftists or centrists (liberals) noticed that in general, righties/reactionaries/conservatives/republicans/MAGAts will shy away from conversations/discussions/debates about the Republican party and/or Trump and how their economic track record has served/continues to serve the "elite" and the "swamp"?

Like, I swear to god, 95% of the time that I see a lib or leftie remind a chud that Trump's only major legislative "accomplishment" was a massive tax cut for the elite and a tax increase on the middle class, the rightie does not reply or if they do they reply without addressing that specific point. They want to constantly virtue signal that they're against the elite, but they can't actually point to anything that Trump has done to hurt/harm/negatively affect the "elite".

The same thing applies any time you talk about the Republican track record on destroying American manufacturing and sending jobs to China by the millions. Its crickets every time, or diversion to talking about something else.

For a constructive way for righties to respond to this thread, can you elucidate me on your understanding of the following subjects and definitions?

1. What is the "elite" to you? Is this just a shadowy cabal that exists as an amalgamation of all of the groups you don't like (Jews, Muslims, Chinese, Black people, Hispanic people, atheists, LGBT people, globalists, etc.)? Is that the elite? Is it wealthy people but only the wealthy people in New York, LA and DC? Do you adhere to society's general understanding of the elite since the beginning of time, as just generally being the economically/financially wealthy upper strata of society? Please, provide a detailed lengthy explanation of who the "elite" is. The floor is yours. Let your freak flag fly and write me a novella about who the elite are. I'll read all of them. One word to one sentence responses are just concessions that you don't even have a good idea of who it is you're screeching about all the time.

2. Name me one single thing that Trump has done to substantially hurt the people you've defined as the "elite", and also explain how what he did, substantially hurt the elite. So A) I'm looking for substance. It needs to be a policy, or legislative accomplishment, or something substantial. Not "oh he said fuck Hunter Biden and that hurt the elite haha owned!". No. What did Trump do that materially, substantially, significantly, harmed your definition of the elite? And B) explain, in detail, how what he did, hurt the elite.

Lastly, look at my meme where you are the NPC soyjack and I am the actual anti-establishment chad:

edit - 4 pages in and not a single rightist willing to give us their definition of the elite, and how Trump has done something to harm them. Who's going to step up? How many pages in can we get with righties doing exactly what I'm accusing them of in the thread title? The evidence is piling up with each page. Come on boys!

I'm really trying to figure out which trolls burner account you are. Have a few suspicions. Regardless, shit post as usual.

 

[blackheart]

eh, I don't make the decisions, the politicians do. That said, economically, I've always been worse off with a democrat in the white house.

I mean, the data doesn't support that.

 

[blackheart]

I'm really trying to figure out which trolls burner account you are. Have a few suspicions. Regardless, shit post as usual.

I'm Brackis. Or QueenB. I'm whoever your schizophrenic inclinations tell you I am on that given day

 

[blackheart]

Like, I swear to God I thought the guy on the left was going to be one of Juicy Smulliettes attackers

Another day, another brackis response thread.

I'm really trying to figure out which trolls burner account you are. Have a few suspicions. Regardless, shit post as usual.

How much longer are you chuds going to keep cucking out and avoiding the topic of this thread and the direct questions that I'm asking you in it?

All 3 of you did exactly what I said you do in the title and the op. Isn't it a little bit embarrassing to be that predictable? If you ask me a sincere direct question, I will answer it. Why can't you lot?