The Real timschochet

No but Soros pays me well. (Actually that’s a lie but I posted it because I know @Cdub100 believes it.)

And @jerryskids I wasn’t trying to give a master class. I was pointing out that while neither political party really cares about our debt, Republicans only pretend to care when it’s spending they don’t like. I’m sure you don’t disagree. As for Kamala, she doesn’t even pretend to care. I admit I liked her speech today, mainly because I want her to win and I think this will help her do so. But she is a spend spend spend liberal just like every other liberal before her. Who could deny it? She doesn’t worry about the deficit or the debt. Why should she? She threw in a laughable line today, something like “we will reduce the deficit as we do this!” No explanation how. It was similar to when Trump claimed that cutting corporate taxes actually produces more revenue. Ah well.

Abbot can’t fill the buses: not enough migrants: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna166412 Looks like this is less of an issue. Should help Kamala.

Whatever it is it will be less than Trump.

Exactly. And you’re not giving 25,000 to homeowners. You’re giving banks a credit. I seriously doubt any money is printed. Which is part of the reason I question whether this will cause net inflation either.

Nope. And it’s not going to hurt her either.

Honestly this claim that Kamala Harris isn’t generating huge crowds is just making you look really really really stupid. Everyone is laughing at you.

Policy only! So much for the character attacks and memes! Well done

both are good ideas and what you fail to recognize is that if we don’t do this you will end up paying far more.

Sure he approves that message, because he’s the one mostly to blame for the inflation, and he will make it far worse. Good luck with that ad, lol.

OK let’s get this straight because a lot of people here are confused about this subject and at least one guy is flat out lying (that’s you @Hardcore troubadour 1. Trump as President placed tariffs on many countries and up to 20% on China (awful- set the stage for most of our economic problems) 2. Biden as President lifted most of the tariffs but kept the ones on China (still awful. Terrible decision by Biden.) 3. Trump’s new plan if he becomes President again will be to place tariffs of 10-20% on ALL countries (no exceptions) and 60% on China. (Disastrous. Will basically destroy our economy. This is the reason I wrote that all those who give a damn about the free market should vote for Kamala no matter how much you might disagree with her.)

Harris was terrific again in her delivery. Anyone who claims now that she is not a good speaker, or that people don’t like her, is simply not paying attention or in denial or both. The speech was filled with economic proposals and it trashed Trump’s ideas (especially the tariff, at last!) One new proposal- a $6000 tax credit during rhe first year of a baby. Talk about promoting families…

Bullsh!t

You have the right to refuse my apology, obviously. I will repeat that there was no attempt to deliberately offend you. You seem like a very bright and good person though I strongly disagree with many of your takes and on this subject in particular. If you wish to engage in further discussion and debate I will always welcome it. If you don’t because you believe I offended you, that’s your privilege as well. Best wishes.

Back to the campaign discussion: Biden talked a lot about the economy but his focus was always on jobs. In terms of the election, that was a mistake: the public is fine with the jobs market, they want to hear about prices, inflation. That’s part of the reason Biden got low grades. Kamala Harris’ team has correctly recognized this and her focus, in her big speech today, will be all about prices and how to bring them down. Her main proposal, which is effectively price controls, is problematic- I side with those who don’t think it will work, and I also think it’s extremely unlikely that she could ever get such a proposal through Congress anyhow. But as a political move it should be a winner and I think it will only advance her popularity.

I’m sorry if you’re insulted. That wasn’t aimed at you personally. I’ve been reading a lot of conservatives claiming that this will help “illegal immigrants” and “undesirables” buy homes. I believe that, in the Trump era, there is a racist element to many of these arguments. I can offer you plenty of evidence for that. Sorry if that offends you. In regards to your earlier post: I do not believe that a program like this one would make it more difficult for you to purchase a home. I don’t believe it would come out of your pocket. On the contrary I believe it will make things more beneficial for you. If I didn’t believe that I would be opposed to it, so you needn’t accuse me of being in favor of your punishment. That is the opposite of my goal here.

This is such a ridiculous argument because it could apply to all government spending. But you never use it to target the spending that you like.

No, it’s not good if only 30% can afford to buy. That’s what Kamala is trying to address here. Isn’t that the whole point?

Again- I am not saying that it won’t create some inflation. I say we can’t know for sure. But whether it creates inflation or not, it’s still a good idea because increased home ownership is generally a good thing for our society; it creates prosperity and stability. And furthermore, I have to add that I’m suspicious of the conservative position here because I feel this isn’t about home ownership per se, it’s about the wrong people being able to buy homes.

A more recent example than 1945: Prop 13 in California stabilized property taxes in this state ever since and created a huge demand in new homes here because it “artificially” allowed new buyers to afford houses by keeping the taxes low. Virtually every Republican supported it and still do; liberals hated it (and most still do.) The result of the new demand in homes was many more homes, stability, prosperity, and an economic dominance here that has lasted nearly 50 years. But that was a government investment that conservatives like, so words like “Marxism” never came up.

Did the GI Bill after 1945 create inflation? There wasn’t nearly enough houses at the time to satisfy the demand that was created. Then along came a guy named Levitt. Are you familiar with him? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Levitt Let me offer an idea: increasing demand in home ownership is GOOD for society. It creates prosperity and stability. This is what we want.

In a vacuum when demand increases the price goes up. That’s not necessarily inflation BTW. But in this instance the demand for these houses is already there. And the government and outside factors are already heavily involved. So I’m not convinced that this will necessarily cause housing prices or any other prices to automatically rise. And I still need you to tell me what any of this has to do with Marxism? I read Das Kapital in college. Awful, boring book with terrible ideas which inevitably lead to horrible dictatorships. But I can’t recall anything in there about government helping people to buy homes in a capitalist society. Seems like an idea like that goes against the entire plan, no?

Republicans are in favor of continuing subsidies for oil companies. Why doesn’t this create inflation? Republicans are in favor of building up our military by giving billions to aerospace. Why doesn’t this create inflation? Republicans are in favor of building Trump’s wall by giving billions to private manufacturers to finish it. Why doesn’t this create inflation? This is why guys like @Strike and the rest are such hypocrites. They only make these arguments when they oppose what the spending is for. Then it becomes inflation and Marxist. If they like the spending, they’re silent about all this stuff.

FTR, the reason I am speculating that this won’t affect inflation is because nobody is handing people cash. The government would be giving the money directly to the lender to lower the asking price by the amount. It doesn’t go directly into circulation which is how inflation is usually created. Now again I could be wrong about that. But even if I am, since our current inflation is a global phenomenon, this shouldn’t have a huge affect on it one way or another. Those are my two theories of the case. They’re not original to me and there’s plenty of disagreement. But they have NOTHING to do with Marxism, and @Strike and @RLLD don’t seem to be able to figure basic economics out enough to make that distinction.

So laughable, you and @Strike. But I will play along. Please explain what specific Marxist ideology I have been taught and believe?