Trump talk only- no Eagles talk allowed (Steelers talk is OK though)

[Mark Davis 339]

8 minutes ago, Strike said:

Not really:

https://goodreason.substack.com/p/you-can-ignore-allan-lichtman-and

You know the two sides argue over whether Walz or Vance are weird.  This guy has lapped both of them early on in the race.

[jerryskids 6,559]

8 minutes ago, Mark Davis said:

Most of those deal with emergencies such as selling power generators and water in hurricane zones. If you want this at the federal level, ok.  That's a totally fair issue.  It just simply isn't a driver of inflation today and is a red herring.  She's throwing that shiny object out there to distract on what the causes of inflation are, and price gouging isn't it.  There's a huge difference in raising price due to a supply shortfall in a high demand time of emergency and raising price because of drastic increases in the cost of your inventory.  

I was going to say something similar @OldMaid, but I won't repeat Mark's excellent description. 

 

[jerryskids 6,559]

18 minutes ago, Strike said:

Not really:

https://goodreason.substack.com/p/you-can-ignore-allan-lichtman-and

I agree with the article; in fact it basically expands on my earlier comment that Lichtman took quite a few liberties putting keys into the Harris camp.  I stopped short of calling him biased though, because he did call Trump in 2016.  Perhaps since then he has become a TDS never-Trumper, I don't know.  

[OldMaid 2,129]

The example shown from Maryland states: 

Quote

during a state of emergency, you are not allowed to set a price for a good or service 15% or higher than the highest price of that good or service within four to 60 days before the state of emergency was declared

Wondering if it would be something similar? 

Also, didn’t Kroger admit to price gouging during covid at a recent ant-trust trial?

[Mark Davis 339]

5 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I agree with the article; in fact it basically expands on my earlier comment that Lichtman took quite a few liberties putting keys into the Harris camp.  I stopped short of calling him biased though, because he did call Trump in 2016.  Perhaps since then he has become a TDS never-Trumper, I don't know.  

Before Biden pulled out, he was a frequent guest on political shows saying the Democrats were fools to consider pulling Biden because they would be sacrificing one of his keys.  I wonder if he still feels Biden is the superior candidate to Harris?

[Mike Honcho 5,096]

1 hour ago, IGotWorms said:

I believe this was pretty much proven to be true, wasn’t it?

He does have an impressive track record, but it’s probably mostly luck 

The answer to that is "it depends".  A group of newspapers did recount every ballot and their isn't really a defined winner.  Ironically if all the undervotes were counted and done with the method Gore wanted-Bush would have one.  If they counted the ballots with the strictest methodology possible, Gore wins by 3 votes. 

Results

[jerryskids 6,559]

22 minutes ago, OldMaid said:

The example shown from Maryland states: 

Wondering if it would be something similar? 

Also, didn’t Kroger admit to price gouging during covid at a recent ant-trust trial?

If they did, and/or if the proposal is a federal price gouging proposal for states of emergency on specific , then that's a discussion worth having.  It doesn't impact the price of groceries now, though.

[The Real timschochet 6,411]

3 hours ago, Mark Davis said:

Honestly I don’t know much of what she wants. It’s being leaked she’s taking opposing positions to stances she’s on the record about. She never does interviews to explain and her website is devoid of policy. Basically we are speculating on what’s behind curtain number 3.
 

I know you don’t feel that way but I’ll disagree with Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders all day, but they at least are very forthright in what they are for and against. I thought I knew with Harris, but things I’ve heard her say, I’m now hearing she’s changed her mind on. But again, it’s what you choose to believe bc she isn’t clarifying it. 
 

As for capital gains, I’m speaking more to the unrealized cap gains tax idea. Do you know where she currently stands?  I’ve heard she supports it but again, I really don’t know. It’s pretty hard to tell. 

Yes she gave a speech yesterday where she stated exactly where  she stands. 28%, an increase from Trump’s reduction down to 20%. Again this is very mild stuff. 

[The Real timschochet 6,411]

OK I was referring to ALL capital gains- not specifically unrealized capital gains. My bad. 

[Mark Davis 339]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

Yes she gave a speech yesterday where she stated exactly were she stands. 28%, an increase from Trump’s reduction down to 20%. Again this is very mild stuff. 

So yay or nay on the unrealized cap gains?  If she's pro that, I'd argue that isn't mild at all.

[The Real timschochet 6,411]

Here are the details on unrealized gains: 

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2024/09/05/harris-economic-plan-tax-unrealized-gains.html

Basically a 25% tax on those with assets over 100 million. Thats not anyone I know (well one guy I think.) But it’s not a whole lot of people. 

[The Real timschochet 6,411]

1 minute ago, Mark Davis said:

So yay or nay on the unrealized cap gains?  If she's pro that, I'd argue that isn't mild at all.

I think it’s still mild if it’s limited to 100 million or more. 

[Mark Davis 339]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

Here are the details on unrealized gains: 

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2024/09/05/harris-economic-plan-tax-unrealized-gains.html

Basically a 25% tax on those with assets over 100 million. Thats not anyone I know (well one guy I think.) But it’s not a whole lot of people. 

It's a wealth tax.  The AMT started out as not being a whole lot of people, now it's a tax that almost everyone can agree isn't equitable, yet the government can't live without the revenue so there's zero chance of repeal.  

[Strike 5,186]

38 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I agree with the article; in fact it basically expands on my earlier comment that Lichtman took quite a few liberties putting keys into the Harris camp.  I stopped short of calling him biased though, because he did call Trump in 2016.  Perhaps since then he has become a TDS never-Trumper, I don't know.  

Did you read the article?  Prior to Trump winning he had said his model picked the popular vote winner.   AFTER Trump won, he CHANGED his stance to say that his model predicted the electoral college winner.

[OldMaid 2,129]

3 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

If they did, and/or if the proposal is a federal price gouging proposal for states of emergency on specific , then that's a discussion worth having.  It doesn't impact the price of groceries now, though.

We’ll have to see the specifics for sure. I was just sick of seeing all the price control fear mongering that’s been going on. 

My best guess would be to look at Sen Warren’s bill to see what it might look like.

[The Real timschochet 6,411]

Meanwhile Trump was asked today about lowering child care costs. He says his new tariffs will pay for it!!

Honestly if you are a right wing free market conservative, you have to face the facts here: Kamala will do things you will no doubt dislike, and a few things you may actually approve of (like the small business tax cut.) Meanwhile the other guy is a complete moron who is apparently determined to collapse our economy. Take your pick. 

[Mark Davis 339]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

I think it’s still mild if it’s limited to 100 million or more. 

NPR doesn't seem to see wealth taxes as being a good idea.  The principle is the same, regardless of scope:

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/02/26/698057356/if-a-wealth-tax-is-such-a-good-idea-why-did-europe-kill-theirs

But as a secondary observation, there aren't enough people qualified to evaluate this from a taxation standpoint.  Although I don't practice now, that's my background.  Valuations would be enormously subjective.

[The Real timschochet 6,411]

3 minutes ago, Mark Davis said:

It's a wealth tax.  The AMT started out as not being a whole lot of people, now it's a tax that almost everyone can agree isn't equitable, yet the government can't live without the revenue so there's zero chance of repeal.  

It is a wealth tax. And Trump’s tariffs will be a tax on all consumers. Again take your pick. To me it’s an easy choice (especially since, assuming one disapproves of both ideas, the reality is that Kamala will have a very difficult time getting her proposal through Congress, while Trump doesn’t need Congress to impose his tariffs. That makes it a no-brainer IMO. P

[jerryskids 6,559]

3 minutes ago, Strike said:

Did you read the article?  Prior to Trump winning he had said his model picked the popular vote winner.   AFTER Trump won, he CHANGED his stance to say that his model predicted the electoral college winner.

Apparently not in enough detail.  I scanned it and saw the objections to the subjective analyses he had provided.

He certainly seems not lacking in confidence.   

[jerryskids 6,559]

4 minutes ago, OldMaid said:

We’ll have to see the specifics for sure. I was just sick of seeing all the price control fear mongering that’s been going on. 

My best guess would be to look at Sen Warren’s bill to see what it might look like.

Sorry, but "price control fear mongering" should be the default IMO.  What you linked regarding states laws against price gouging during emergencies is NOT what she is proposing.  The onus is on her to provide details to assuage such concerns.   

[The Real timschochet 6,411]

3 minutes ago, Mark Davis said:

NPR doesn't seem to see wealth taxes as being a good idea.  The principle is the same, regardless of scope:

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/02/26/698057356/if-a-wealth-tax-is-such-a-good-idea-why-did-europe-kill-theirs

But as a secondary observation, there aren't enough people qualified to evaluate this from a taxation standpoint.  Although I don't practice now, that's my background.  Valuations would be enormously subjective.

I don’t think it’s a good idea either in principle but there is context here: 

Kamala is not really imposing new taxes so much as she is reversing part (not all) of Trump’s tax cuts. So using Europe’s example in which the percentages were a lot higher is not really apt. 

Still again I agree with your argument in principle. But the whole tariff idea makes all of these considerations kind of moot.

 

[Mark Davis 339]

Just now, The Real timschochet said:

It is a wealth tax. And Trump’s tariffs will be a tax on all consumers. Again take your pick. To me it’s an easy choice (especially since, assuming one disapproves of both ideas, the reality is that Kamala will have a very difficult time getting her proposal through Congress, while Trump doesn’t need Congress to impose his tariffs. That makes it a no-brainer IMO. P

We might could find some common ground on tariffs, but that is a separate discussion.  I'm glad we can both agree the wealth tax idea sucks though.  But honestly both of us realize that she personally doesn't have the fiscal knowledge and/or have invested the time to understand the "why" of that, it's a pandering thing to the left to tax the rich.  That's not an insult really, moreso she's never been a business person or involved in finance, and she likely has invested her time in other areas rather than to study this beyond what some staffers present to her.  Someone on her staff likely suggested it, it's a nod to the Warren wing, one she voted with frequently in the Senate.  It's who she is, and that goes back to my point of her shifting views.  I firmly believe that she does believe in this.  This one is consistent with who she has been.  

[jerryskids 6,559]

2 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

It is a wealth tax. And Trump’s tariffs will be a tax on all consumers. Again take your pick. To me it’s an easy choice (especially since, assuming one disapproves of both ideas, the reality is that Kamala will have a very difficult time getting her proposal through Congress, while Trump doesn’t need Congress to impose his tariffs. That makes it a no-brainer IMO. P

A wealth tax would impact three major classes of people:

- Folks like Warren Buffett, with a shiot-ton of investments with unrealized gains.  They would have to sell off a ton of holdings to pay such a tax.  

- Folks who started successful companies, or were very early in such companies, which went public.  They would have to sell off a significant amount of holdings to pay this tax.

- Folks with very successful private companies, who might need to sell such companies to pay this tax.

Do you think any of these are a net positive for the country?

None of the above is taking anything away from the rest of people.  If your objection is the typical Leftie "it just isn't fair!", then at least admit it.   

[The Real timschochet 6,411]

If we’re going to discuss Kamala’s proposals we need first to accept a very important truth: Jon Tester is not going to win Montana. Tester is way behind, his opponent is popular, Montana is redder than red. It’s not gonna happen. 

And that means that the Senate is going to be Republican. So you can forget about capital gains taxes, and laws against price gouging, and stopping fracking, and a lot of other stuff conservatives are so opposed to. None of it is real. It’s just a lot of talk. What’s real is the small business proposal; that might go through. What’s real is Kamala’s more moderate ideas. 

[The Real timschochet 6,411]

Just now, jerryskids said:

A wealth tax would impact three major classes of people:

- Folks like Warren Buffett, with a shiot-ton of investments with unrealized gains.  They would have to sell off a ton of holdings to pay such a tax.  

- Folks who started successful companies, or were very early in such companies, which went public.  They would have to sell off a significant amount of holdings to pay this tax.

- Folks with very successful private companies, who might need to sell such companies to pay this tax.

Do you think any of these are a net positive for the country?

None of the above is taking anything away from the rest of people.  If your objection is the typical Leftie "it just isn't fair!", then at least admit it.   

You’re preaching to the choir. I’m not for government decisions on behalf of fairness. I’m for whatever improves people’s lives. Screw fairness. That’s why I am in favor of forgiving student loans, because I believe it will lead to more home purchases and therefore a more stable society. Conservatives say it’s unfair. That’s why I’m for giving amnesty to most undocumented immigrants already here, because I think it’s good for our economy. Conservatives say that’s unfair to those who came here “the right way.” But I don’t care about fairness. I’m pretty consistent about that.

In this case it’s liberals that are whining about fairness and I still don’t give a crap. If I believed taxing the rich more would benefit the economy I’d be all for it. But I’m skeptical. It might work but again it might not. 

[Strike 5,186]

9 minutes ago, Mark Davis said:

We might could find some common ground on tariffs, but that is a separate discussion.  I'm glad we can both agree the wealth tax idea sucks though.  But honestly both of us realize that she personally doesn't have the fiscal knowledge and/or have invested the time to understand the "why" of that, it's a pandering thing to the left to tax the rich.  That's not an insult really, moreso she's never been a business person or involved in finance, and she likely has invested her time in other areas rather than to study this beyond what some staffers present to her.  Someone on her staff likely suggested it, it's a nod to the Warren wing, one she voted with frequently in the Senate.  It's who she is, and that goes back to my point of her shifting views.  I firmly believe that she does believe in this.  This one is consistent with who she has been.  

I think she has the same motivations as her gouging initiative - To do nothing.  She's saying it now to get elected and it will die on the vine if she does.  It panders to low income people who think the rich are the problem.

[Mark Davis 339]

7 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

If we’re going to discuss Kamala’s proposals we need first to accept a very important truth: Jon Tester is not going to win Montana. Tester is way behind, his opponent is popular, Montana is redder than red. It’s not gonna happen. 

And that means that the Senate is going to be Republican. So you can forget about capital gains taxes, and laws against price gouging, and stopping fracking, and a lot of other stuff conservatives are so opposed to. None of it is real. It’s just a lot of talk. What’s real is the small business proposal; that might go through. What’s real is Kamala’s more moderate ideas. 

You’re right on this. I saw polling today and he appears to be done. The House is going to be a mess and small majority either way. I don’t see much getting through there either. I think the House is the most likely blue result of the 3 elections. The Senate almost certainly red. 

[The Real timschochet 6,411]

3 minutes ago, Mark Davis said:

You’re right on this. I saw polling today and he appears to be done. The House is going to be a mess and small majority either way. I don’t see much getting through there either. I think the House is the most likely blue result of the 3 elections. The Senate almost certainly red. 

I don’t blame Kamala for acting exactly like 100% of all Republicans and Democrats before her, but damn it would be so refreshing to just ONCE have a candidate say “you know what? I’m going to face opposition in Congress so most of what I would like to do I probably won’t get done. So here’s a more realistic series of proposals.” 
But of course that never energizes the base, and that’s where you get the most votes. But personally I would love it. 

[jerryskids 6,559]

29 minutes ago, Mark Davis said:

You’re right on this. I saw polling today and he appears to be done. The House is going to be a mess and small majority either way. I don’t see much getting through there either. I think the House is the most likely blue result of the 3 elections. The Senate almost certainly red. 

I haven't followed this on a national scale:  does the Senate projection include Ruben Gallego beating Kerry Lake in AZ?  Because Lake is an abject failure who will never win anything, but if the Republicans still manage to keep the Senate overall, that is reassuring. 

[jerryskids 6,559]

37 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

You’re preaching to the choir. I’m not for government decisions on behalf of fairness. I’m for whatever improves people’s lives. Screw fairness. That’s why I am in favor of forgiving student loans, because I believe it will lead to more home purchases and therefore a more stable society. Conservatives say it’s unfair. That’s why I’m for giving amnesty to most undocumented immigrants already here, because I think it’s good for our economy. Conservatives say that’s unfair to those who came here “the right way.” But I don’t care about fairness. I’m pretty consistent about that.

In this case it’s liberals that are whining about fairness and I still don’t give a crap. If I believed taxing the rich more would benefit the economy I’d be all for it. But I’m skeptical. It might work but again it might not. 

Well, let's parse this.

- Forgiving student loans to allow people who can't pay off student loans, to get larger mortgages on houses they can't pay off, does not seem like a path to success.  I presume you were around during the last mortgage crisis?   

- Amnesty to illegal aliens is not about fairness, although some position it as such.  It is about, as we've discussed 43215 times, that you can't use past (mostly legal) immigration statistics from (mostly) first world European, Nigerian, and Chinese countries to conclude that illegal aliens from third world countries are a net positive.

- I'm not saying you disagree, but taxing the rich never, ever works.  As I've said her a similar 43215 number of times, they have more, smarter, and more financially motivated accountants on staff to make sure they don't.  The onus for paying for these boondoggles always falls back on the middle class.

[The Real timschochet 6,411]

15 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Well, let's parse this.

- Forgiving student loans to allow people who can't pay off student loans, to get larger mortgages on houses they can't pay off, does not seem like a path to success.  I presume you were around during the last mortgage crisis?   

- Amnesty to illegal aliens is not about fairness, although some position it as such.  It is about, as we've discussed 43215 times, that you can't use past (mostly legal) immigration statistics from (mostly) first world European, Nigerian, and Chinese countries to conclude that illegal aliens from third world countries are a net positive.

- I'm not saying you disagree, but taxing the rich never, ever works.  As I've said her a similar 43215 number of times, they have more, smarter, and more financially motivated accountants on staff to make sure they don't.  The onus for paying for these boondoggles always falls back on the middle class.

Putting aside the first two points (we’ve discussed them ad naseum) I agree in principle with your third point. And yet- under Democratic administrations when the taxes on the wealthy have been significantly higher, the economy has tended to do better and grow faster. Thats been pretty consistently true for the last 50 years and it gives me pause. How about you? 

[Mark Davis 339]

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

I haven't followed this on a national scale:  does the Senate projection include Ruben Gallego beating Kerry Lake in AZ?  Because Lake is an abject failure who will never win anything, but if the Republicans still manage to keep the Senate overall, that is reassuring. 

Yes I don't think they need Lake to be the majority.  They just keep putting her up and she keeps finding a way to lose.

[OldMaid 2,129]

3 hours ago, Strike said:

Did you read the article?  Prior to Trump winning he had said his model picked the popular vote winner.   AFTER Trump won, he CHANGED his stance to say that his model predicted the electoral college winner.

This doesn’t make sense. If that was the case he could claim he accurately predicted all 10 of the last elections because Gore won the popular vote.

[Hardcore troubadour 14,930]

Say no to socialism.  Don’t vote for Harris/ Walz. 

[OldMaid 2,129]

2 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Sorry, but "price control fear mongering" should be the default IMO. What you linked regarding states laws against price gouging during emergencies is NOT what she is proposing.  The onus is on her to provide details to assuage such concerns.   

I guess if you’re a my glass is 1/2 empty kinda guy. 

We don’t know yet what she’s proposing. Which is why I was stressing not jumping to conclusions.

[Strike 5,186]

Just now, OldMaid said:

I guess if you’re a my glass is 1/2 empty kinda guy. 

We don’t know yet what she’s proposing. Which is why I was stressing not jumping to conclusions.

She could clear up any confusion pretty easily, couldn't she?

[OldMaid 2,129]

Just now, Strike said:

She could clear up any confusion pretty easily, couldn't she?

Of course she could, and I don’t disagree with Tim’s take earlier about politicians not being upfront, but that’s the game these days.

[Strike 5,186]

2 minutes ago, OldMaid said:

Of course she could, and I don’t disagree with Tim’s take earlier about politicians not being upfront, but that’s the game these days.

Some politicians.  And only because people like you allow it.  Take a stand.  Commit to not voting for someone who won't define their policies. 

[OldMaid 2,129]

1 minute ago, Strike said:

Some politicians.  And only because people like you allow it.  Take a stand.  Commit to not voting for someone who won't define their policies. 

[Strike 5,186]

21 minutes ago, OldMaid said:

This doesn’t make sense. If that was the case he could claim he accurately predicted all 10 of the last elections because Gore won the popular vote.

So you didn't read the article either, huh?  Read the first paragraph of this document and tell me whether it says electoral college or popular vote:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ksm9n3qsptqkjd7avr5km/Allan-Lichtman-2016-The-Keys-to-The-White-House-Social-Education-80-5.pdf?rlkey=qdtcni8kxv60qxfz52ewecy1u&e=2&st=27o5ep7i&dl=0