Kamala Harris for President thread

[Engorgeous George 2,131]

2 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

No, this is wrong IMO. 
 

Ever since FDR and the New Deal government has involved itself with corrections of the free market. This hasn’t hurt capitalism at all; in fact it’s saved it and created greater prosperity. Relieving student loans, for example, is an excellent idea because it will increase the number of first time buyers. And there is no principle involved here, because Republicans are just as heavily involved in government investments (for example the petroleum industry.) I suppose if you truly believed in your argument based on principle you might vote libertarian, but it’s not reflective of actual capitalism in this country for the last 100 years. 
I do appreciate the Network reference. Paddy Chayefsky was a genius. 

You do not understand the concept of balanced equations.  You, and Democrats in general seem to think you can shift money from one side of an equation to another and that it will have no ramifications for the side from which it was taken.  You believe wealth can magically be created through legislation.  It cannot.  It can only be shifted, and in the shifting there is resentment and loss, and of course those doing the shifting think their efforts are worthy of some percentage of that shifted.  

The only way to create value is through work, through production, through effort, not through legislation. Democratic policies appeal to you for psychological reasons.  Like a child you believe things should be fair and you want to make them so, in your mind.  News flash.  The world is not fair, eagles eat bunnies and bears eat salmon, and bacteria and viruses eat the child prodigy just before she writes down the solution to cold fusion.  Your attempts at fairness seem to you to produce better outcomes because you do not see the whole picture.  You believe legislation has made things more efficient as you like the redistribution, but there is no way to know how inefficent things have been made since the other outcome, the outcome from noninterference is never known once the interference has occured.  What we do know is that folks addicted to power, folks who seek dominion over others make a very nice living being nonproductive, selling their words for the labor of others.  They skim value and skimmed value for no production is by definition inefficeint.

[Engorgeous George 2,131]

Ahh language. Gain control of it and maybe you can redefine reality.  Call market interference "corrections" and maybe folks will believe it.  Call health care services "public health care" and maybe the public has to pay for it.  

[HellToupee 1,587]

32 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

 

That’s a fun factoid 

[The Real timschochet 6,421]

12 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

You do not understand the concept of balanced equations.  You, and Democrats in general seem to think you can shift money from one side of an equation to another and that it will have no ramifications for the side from which it was taken.  You believe wealth can magically be created through legislation.  It cannot.  It can only be shifted, adn in tyhe shifting their is resentment and loss, and of course those doing the shifting think their efforts are worthy of some percentage of that shifted.  

The only way to create value is through work, through production, through effort, not through legislation. Democratic policies appeal to you for psychological reasons.  Like a child you believe things should be fair and you want to make them so, in your mind.  News flash.  The world is not fair, eagles eat bunnies and bears eat salmon, and bacteria and viruses eat the child prodigy just before she writes down the solution to cold fusion.  Your attempts at fairness seem to you to produce better outcomes because you do not see the whole picture.  You believe legislation has made things more efficient as you like the redistribution, but there is no way to know how inefficent things have been made since the other outcome, the outcome from noninterference is never known once the interference has occured.  What we do know is that folks addicted to power, folks who seek dominion over others make a very nice living being nonproductive, selling their words for the labor of others.  They skim value and skimmed value for no production is by definition inefficeint.

Of course there are ramifications. But the problem with conservatives such as yourself is that you assume they’re all negative. Many times they are positive. 
 

However, that’s not my main problem with your argument. My main problem is that you’re insisting on treating our society as some sort of theoretical model which is currently unfettered capitalism until we choose to make this new move interfering with it. Thats not at all the case. If we forgive student loans, the government will be heavily involved with free enterprise. If we do NOT forgive student loans, the government will still be heavily involved with free enterprise. You’re not making an argument for less involvement; if you get your way you’re only redirecting the involvement somewhere else. Thus, as much as some of your points might make sense in a theoretical discussion, they don’t have any bearing on the real world. 

When it comes to an issue like student loan relief, we can therefore dismiss all questions of fairness and principle. The ONLY question we need to ask ourselves is this: would such a move benefit our society? I can make a good argument that it would. 

[BrahmaBulls 628]

1 hour ago, squistion said:

https://x.com/KatiePhang/status/1818644970091520171

“More than 100 venture capitalists said on Wednesday that they had pledged to vote for Vice President Kamala Harris in November and had solicited donations for her presidential campaign…”

Buying an election pretty much

[squistion 1,952]

18 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

Ahh language. Gain control of it and maybe you can redefine reality.  Call market interference "corrections" and maybe folks will believe it. 

Call health care services "public health care" and maybe the public has to pay for it.  

Government health care services provided to the public is public health care (otherwise it is private health care). 

[The Real timschochet 6,421]

I imagine the DNC is going to be pretty crowded: 

Monday night: Barack and Michelle

Tuesday night: Joe Biden 

Wednesday night: VP Candidate 

Thursday night: Kamala…and Taylor Swift? 

[The Real timschochet 6,421]

6 minutes ago, BrahmaBulls said:

Buying an election pretty much

Yeah we wouldn’t want to do that. Are you telling Elon and Peter Thiel? 

[BrahmaBulls 628]

10 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Yeah we wouldn’t want to do that. Are you telling Elon and Peter Thiel? 

So when we talk term limits, stop yapping about election and what not.  The people with the most money win the elections most of the time.  Take Pelosi - she will never lose because they will always vote D and no one has enough money and power to challenge her.   

[The Real timschochet 6,421]

6 minutes ago, BrahmaBulls said:

So when we talk term limits, stop yapping about election and what not.  The people with the most money win the elections most of the time.  Take Pelosi - she will never lose because they will always vote D and no one has enough money and power to challenge her.   

But Pelosi is quite possibly the greatest legislator in Congress we’ve ever had. Why wouldn’t we want that? 

[lickin_starfish 1,893]

(5) Elon Musk on X: "Wow https://t.co/P26JfTjPPJ" / X

[HellToupee 1,587]

32 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Tuesday night: Joe Biden 

Bold prediction: this never happens. Just a hunch

[Mike Honcho 5,097]

14 hours ago, BrahmaBulls said:

She's already on board and a flaming liberal.  Isn't it pathetic that someone needs a singer to get votes because policy sucks?  America!   

 

[IGotWorms 4,057]

1 hour ago, Engorgeous George said:

You do not understand the concept of balanced equations.  You, and Democrats in general seem to think you can shift money from one side of an equation to another and that it will have no ramifications for the side from which it was taken.  You believe wealth can magically be created through legislation.  It cannot.  It can only be shifted, adn in tyhe shifting their is resentment and loss, and of course those doing the shifting think their efforts are worthy of some percentage of that shifted.  

The only way to create value is through work, through production, through effort, not through legislation. Democratic policies appeal to you for psychological reasons.  Like a child you believe things should be fair and you want to make them so, in your mind.  News flash.  The world is not fair, eagles eat bunnies and bears eat salmon, and bacteria and viruses eat the child prodigy just before she writes down the solution to cold fusion.  Your attempts at fairness seem to you to produce better outcomes because you do not see the whole picture.  You believe legislation has made things more efficient as you like the redistribution, but there is no way to know how inefficent things have been made since the other outcome, the outcome from noninterference is never known once the interference has occured.  What we do know is that folks addicted to power, folks who seek dominion over others make a very nice living being nonproductive, selling their words for the labor of others.  They skim value and skimmed value for no production is by definition inefficeint.

Your take is valid but too extreme. The free market is awesome but it absolutely does require some checks and balances (ie, regulation), to make it work well enough for everyone. Otherwise you end up with really extreme wealth and income inequality that is simply unsustainable. To say nothing of the environment and so forth.

There is a risk of going too far on regulation and stifling the economy. Democrats have not dabbled in that in a good long while (several decades at least) but it could come back around. I will not support that but I also do not support your extremely bleak vision of capitalism either.

[IGotWorms 4,057]

1 hour ago, Engorgeous George said:

Ahh language. Gain control of it and maybe you can redefine reality.  Call market interference "corrections" and maybe folks will believe it.  Call health care services "public health care" and maybe the public has to pay for it.  

This old canard?

It ain’t the 80s anymore and we ain’t going back.

NEWSFLASH for you buddy: we all pay for it one way or another. Unless you are literally willing to let people die in the streets because they cannot afford basic medical care, you’re paying for it. You can pay for it through the extremely inefficient and ineffective old way, where your insurance cost a bunch because hospitals had to give free care to everyone, or you can try to get your arms around it through the Affordable Care Act or similar approach. Either way, though, you’re paying for it, I’m paying for it, everyone with a half decent job and insurance is paying for it.

You are not this stupid. So my question is: why are you trying to deceive everybody?

[IGotWorms 4,057]

27 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

Bold prediction: this never happens. Just a hunch

It’ll happen. He can deliver a rousing speech that makes everyone remember they once liked him, or he could look like a senile idiot and people will feel bad for him and appreciate that he was willing to accept the situation and pass the torch. It’s a win win either way 

[JuneJuly 193]

7 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

This old canard?

It ain’t the 80s anymore and we ain’t going back.

NEWSFLASH for you buddy: we all pay for it one way or another. Unless you are literally willing to let people die in the streets because they cannot afford basic medical care, you’re paying for it. You can pay for it through the extremely inefficient and ineffective old way, where your insurance cost a bunch because hospitals had to give free care to everyone, or you can try to get your arms around it through the Affordable Care Act or similar approach. Either way, though, you’re paying for it, I’m paying for it, everyone with a half decent job and insurance is paying for it.

You are not this stupid. So my question is: why are you trying to deceive everybody?

Literally dying in the streets?  You need to get out more.

 

 

[HellToupee 1,587]

Only 4 of her original 47 staffers still work for Harris. Oof

[Engorgeous George 2,131]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

Of course there are ramifications. But the problem with conservatives such as yourself is that you assume they’re all negative. Many times they are positive. 
 

However, that’s not my main problem with your argument. My main problem is that you’re insisting on treating our society as some sort of theoretical model which is currently unfettered capitalism until we choose to make this new move interfering with it. Thats not at all the case. If we forgive student loans, the government will be heavily involved with free enterprise. If we do NOT forgive student loans, the government will still be heavily involved with free enterprise. You’re not making an argument for less involvement; if you get your way you’re only redirecting the involvement somewhere else. Thus, as much as some of your points might make sense in a theoretical discussion, they don’t have any bearing on the real world. 

When it comes to an issue like student loan relief, we can therefore dismiss all questions of fairness and principle. The ONLY question we need to ask ourselves is this: would such a move benefit our society? I can make a good argument that it would. 

Make it then.  When you do please discuss not how it benefits the loan forgivees and the potential, if not the actuality, that they will buy homes fueling the economy or at least one sector thereof, but address the fact that this shifting of debt prevents those to whom it is shifted from using their  capital to fuel the same economic benefits.  Discuss how teaching irresponsibility for debts undertaken will correct the system which allowed, even encouraged, those idiots to overspend on an unproductive and overpriced education.  You are encouraging continuation of a broken system taking advantage of fools.

 

Explain to me how legislators seeking power, and not production, who take a share for themselves while producing nothing is efficient.  Explain how rewarding mediocrity or worse over excellence and effort improves the lot of society as a whole rather than of the mediocre.  You enable the lowest common denominator while shackling the extraordinary.  

[Engorgeous George 2,131]

49 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

 

Looks pretty buff for a fella his age.  Whetyher that is due to good nutrition and good exercise habits I have my doubts.  Still, he looks good.

[Engorgeous George 2,131]

47 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

This old canard?

It ain’t the 80s anymore and we ain’t going back.

NEWSFLASH for you buddy: we all pay for it one way or another. Unless you are literally willing to let people die in the streets because they cannot afford basic medical care, you’re paying for it. You can pay for it through the extremely inefficient and ineffective old way, where your insurance cost a bunch because hospitals had to give free care to everyone, or you can try to get your arms around it through the Affordable Care Act or similar approach. Either way, though, you’re paying for it, I’m paying for it, everyone with a half decent job and insurance is paying for it.

You are not this stupid. So my question is: why are you trying to deceive everybody?

I am willing to let people die in the streets.  Very willing.  If those people have any prospect of being productive the health care providers will extend them credit and care.  If they are inherently unoproductive cull them from society.  Your compassion requires my partial privation and so too the privation of my family and friends. If you want to exercise compassion on your dime I encourage that. 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,934]

I don’t know if it will be Kelly. That puts his senate seat in jeopardy.  

[IGotWorms 4,057]

40 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

I am willing to let people die in the streets.  Very willing.  If those people have any prospect of being productive the health care providrs will extend them credit and care.  If they are inherently unoproductive cull them from society.  Your compassion requires my partial privation and so too the privation of my family and friends. If you want to exercise compassion on your dime i encourage that. 

Well, at least you’re honest.

[The Real timschochet 6,421]

23 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

Make it then.  When you do please discuss not how it benefits the loan forgivees and the potential, if not the actuality, that they will buy homes fueling the economy or at least one sector thereof, but address the fact that this shifting of debt prevents those to whom it is shifted from using their  capital to fuel the same economic benefits.  Discuss how teaching irresponsibility for debts undertaken will correct the system which allowed, even encouraged, those idiots to overspend on an unproductive and overpriced education.  You are encouraging continuation of a broken system taking advantage of fools.

 

Explain to me how legislators seeking power, and not production, who take a share for themselves while producing nothing is efficient.  Explain how rewarding mediocrity or worse over excellence and effort improves the lot of society as a whole rather than of the mediocre.  You enable the lowest common denominator while shackling the extraordinary.  

Well I can’t let your first point go- home buying doesn’t simply benefit one factor of the economy, it benefits ALL factors. It proven to be the key element in promoting economic stability. 
Second, don’t go quoting Atlas Shrugged to me. By forgiving student loans I’m doing nothing to hamper the Hank Reardons of the world. Also, I take strong issue with your description of these students as idiots with “unproductive educations”. That’s bunk. Plenty of them will achieve much for our society and we should encourage them to do so. 
 

Now here is a study from 2021 about how forgiving student loans will boost the economy: 

https://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/rpr_2_6.pdf

It’s kind of long (68 pages) but it makes the argument that the boost would be between 60 and 100 billion. And that’s just for starters. Many many economists see the value of this. 

[The Real timschochet 6,421]

18 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

I am willing to let people die in the streets.  Very willing.  If those people have any prospect of being productive the health care providers will extend them credit and care.  If they are inherently unoproductive cull them from society.  Your compassion requires my partial privation and so too the privation of my family and friends. If you want to exercise compassion on your dime I encourage that. 

This is the reason that I ultimately chose to reject Ayn Rand. Because I don’t want to live in this sort of society. 

[JuneJuly 193]

@Engorgeous George

Bravo Sir

Our government is set up with checks and balances to govern (for very good reasons) that inhibit it's ability to ever compete in the capitalistic marketplace.  Our government was designed to govern, not run corporations or provide services.  They'll never be cheaper and more efficient.  That's why libs have to resort to BS reasons like wealth inequality, the environment and people dying in the streets. It isn't arguable on it's economic merits.   

 

[The Real timschochet 6,421]

11 minutes ago, JuneJuly said:

@Engorgeous George

Bravo Sir

Our government is set up with checks and balances to govern (for very good reasons) that inhibit it's ability to ever compete in the capitalistic marketplace.  Our government was designed to govern, not run corporations or provide services.  They'll never be cheaper and more efficient.  That's why libs have to resort to BS reasons like wealth inequality, the environment and people dying in the streets. It isn't arguable on it's economic merits.   

 

Good job on not reading his posts or the replies. This has nothing to do with government running corporations. 

We’re trying to have a grown up conversation for once (quite unusual in this forum.) Go back to the kids table. 

[JuneJuly 193]

2 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Good job on not reading his posts or the replies. This has nothing to do with government running corporations. 

We’re trying to have a grown up conversation for once (quite unusual in this forum.) Go back to the kids table. 

I was commenting on the Affordable Care Act mentioned below.

1 hour ago, IGotWorms said:

This old canard?

It ain’t the 80s anymore and we ain’t going back.

NEWSFLASH for you buddy: we all pay for it one way or another. Unless you are literally willing to let people die in the streets because they cannot afford basic medical care, you’re paying for it. You can pay for it through the extremely inefficient and ineffective old way, where your insurance cost a bunch because hospitals had to give free care to everyone, or you can try to get your arms around it through the Affordable Care Act or similar approach. Either way, though, you’re paying for it, I’m paying for it, everyone with a half decent job and insurance is paying for it.

You are not this stupid. So my question is: why are you trying to deceive everybody?

You know, the government trying to be an insurance company with our tax dollars.  

[IGotWorms 4,057]

4 minutes ago, JuneJuly said:

I was commenting on the Affordable Care Act mentioned below.

You know, the government trying to be an insurance company with our tax dollars.  

Well that’s just inaccurate. The government is trying to promote a workable insurance market. It is not the insurer nor is it trying to be.

Maybe it should be since that does generally seem to work okay (see: Medicare). But it isn’t. The ACA is a market-based solution 

[Sean Mooney 1,938]

14 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Good job on not reading his posts or the replies. This has nothing to do with government running corporations. 

We’re trying to have a grown up conversation for once (quite unusual in this forum.) Go back to the kids table. 

 

He's not allowed within 200 yards of the kids table.

Also, no way he can fit at the table even if he was allowed

[JuneJuly 193]

13 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Well that’s just inaccurate. The government is trying to promote a workable insurance market. It is not the insurer nor is it trying to be.

Maybe it should be since that does generally seem to work okay (see: Medicare). But it isn’t. The ACA is a market-based solution 

My bad, an insurance broker. Whew big diff.  

[Engorgeous George 2,131]

31 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Well I can’t let your first point go- home buying doesn’t simply benefit one factor of the economy, it benefits ALL factors. It proven to be the key element in promoting economic stability. That is why I wrote "at least one sector" as I did not wish to get bogged down in a discussion of how the extent homebuilding is integrated into the current economic engine.  You ahve not caught me out, you just ignored the import of what I wrote so you could seem to school me.
Second, don’t go quoting Atlas Shrugged to me. By forgiving student loans I’m doing nothing to hamper the Hank Reardons of the world. Also, I take strong issue with your description of these students as idiots with “unproductive educations”.  If their edfucations were worth the paper upon which their degrees are printed they would not need student loan forgiveness.  That they cannot and are not being meaningfully employed in their chosen fields is a priori proof their educations are valueless, or nearly so, and anyone who massively overpays for the nearly valueless is  an idiot.  Now they likely had good times but they did not get an education, not until they got it when they finally realized they had paid for something with no value.  That is an education. That’s bunk. Plenty of them will achieve much for our society and we should encourage them to do so. I encourage achievement, I don't wish to subsidize lack of achievement.
 

Now here is a study from 2021 about how forgiving student loans will boost the economy: Ahh another Tim Study conducted by persons whose very premise subsumes their opredictable conclusion and who necessarily ignore variables they cannot even concieve of.  Very nice.  I will presume you did not read it as it is obscure adn you did not have time.  additionally as you cite this 2018 paper as occuring in 2021 I am fairly certain of my conclusion that you did not digest it.

https://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/rpr_2_6.pdf

It’s kind of long (68 pages) but it makes the argument that the boost would be between 60 and 100 billion. And that’s just for starters. Many many economists see the value of this. 

 

[JuneJuly 193]

9 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

 

He's not allowed within 200 yards of the kids table.

Also, no way he can fit at the table even if he was allowed

Oh oh, can't wait for the substitute teacher who took some college electives to weigh in on the topic!

Once I stated you can't argue on it's economic merits here come the insults.  lol   

[Engorgeous George 2,131]

41 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

This is the reason that I ultimately chose to reject Ayn Rand. Because I don’t want to live in this sort of society. 

But you do need me to live in your society so you can continue to milk me.  I am tired of being Boxer from Animal Farm.  I am tired of pulling the wagon for the nonproductive who then want to lecture me on the manner in which I pull the wagon they have chosen to hitch a ride in though it is already overful with produce they have neither grown nor harvested.  .

[The Real timschochet 6,421]

2 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

 

Did I read the whole thing? No. I skimmed it and I read the summary. 

The main reason I link these studies is because these folks are usually smarter than me. Plus they’ve researched the data to back up their arguments and I haven’t. There’s no intention of deceit on my part. 

 

 

 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,934]

21 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Well that’s just inaccurate. The government is trying to promote a workable insurance market. It is not the insurer nor is it trying to be.

Maybe it should be since that does generally seem to work okay (see: Medicare). But it isn’t. The ACA is a market-based solution 

Lol. You no no one that pays for Obamacare. Nor do you know anyone  on it that doesn’t. 

[Engorgeous George 2,131]

9 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

Did I read the whole thing? No. I skimmed it and I read the summary. 

The main reason I link these studies is because these folks are usually smarter than me. Plus they’ve researched the data to back up their arguments and I haven’t. There’s no intention of deceit on my part. 

 

 

 

I believe you when you say you do not intend to deceive me.  The problem is you do intend to deceive yourself.  You are not examining issues, you are just running around looking for justification for a skewed viewpoint.  

[Hardcore troubadour 14,934]

5 minutes ago, JuneJuly said:

Oh oh, can't wait for the substitute teacher who took some college electives to weigh in on the topic!

Once I stated you can't argue on it's economic merits here come the insults.  lol   

Now now, Mooney studied under the esteemed art history professor Robert Langdon 

[The Real timschochet 6,421]

6 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

But you do need me to live in your society so you can continue to milk me.  I am tired of being Boxer from Animal Farm.  I am tired of pulling the wagon for the nonproductive who then want to lecture me on the manner in which I pull the wagon they have chosen to hitch a ride in though it is already overful with produce they have neither grown nor harvested.  .

Boxer achieved no benefits from living on Animal Farm. You on the other hand achieve major benefits living here. Taxation is part of the price you pay for those benefits, and you don’t get be the only one deciding where those taxes go. But we do live in a free society so if you can get enough people to agree with your position that we should let the “unproductive” die in the streets, then that will  become policy. I hope it never comes to that. 

[Engorgeous George 2,131]

I would discuss this more but I have some chores to do before heading out to Vegas to catch another set of Dead and Company shows at the Sphere. BTW, the shows are inbcredible and the venue is amazing as well.  Maybe I will check in later.