US 2024 Presidential Election

[Dirty Hipsters]

Kamala Harris banks on hunger for change, with few policy details

The campaign is light on policy, writes Anthony Zurcher - so can energy alone beat Donald Trump?

www.bbc.com

View attachment 11754

Harris has been the official nominee for less than a week, and has been a candidate for like a month. No shit her campaign is light on policy, it's barely started.

Trump has been campaigning for 3 years now. Please tell me what his economic policies are beyond tax breaks for the wealthy.

 

[Gergar12]

Harris has been the official nominee for less than a week, and has been a candidate for like a month. No shit her campaign is light on policy, it's barely started.

Trump has been campaigning for 3 years now. Please tell me what his economic policies are beyond tax breaks for the wealthy.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/issues

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Neither was January 6th.

It was an attempted coup. I think we've already gone over the fact that trying and failing to commit a crime does not mean everything's okay.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/issues

That doesn't state any specific economic plans other than "make economy good." I don't want platitudes, tell me policies.

 

[Gergar12]

That doesn't state any specific economic plans other than "make economy good." I don't want platitudes, tell me policies.

Why? I am not planning on voting for him, and that's more still substance than Harris's campaign. I am, however, debating not voting for Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown so the Democrats in the Senate can't crash the S&P500 and possibly force people to pay a 25% tax on valuation increases on their property, and investments each year.

https://www.axios.com/2024/08/23/kamala-harris-unrealized-capital-gains-tax

And with Trump, you have to look at history.

His economic policy will likely be(whether I support him or any of these policies or not), based purely on his history as president

A less climate-regulated energy sector increases defense spending, and tariffs on not just Chinese goods, but possibly EU, Taiwanese, South Korean, and Japanese goods if they don't either pay the US for protecting them (protection racket???) or lessen renting base fees if there are any. A less-regulated insurance market, keeping social security, and Medicare spending at current levels, lessening immigration both illegal and legal via the DHS slowing down processing family visas, and speeding up deportations. More pressure on MBZ and MBS in the Gulf states to lower energy prices for petroleum products somewhat in exchange for fighting Iran somehow. Keynesian-style stimulus if the economy is in recession. And lower interest rates, and a less independent federal reserve due purely to win over the American populace.

 

[tstorm823]

It was an attempted coup. I think we've already gone over the fact that trying and failing to commit a crime does not mean everything's okay.

It was a protest turned into a riot. There was no attempt to overthrow the US government.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Why? I am not planning on voting for him, and that's more still substance than Harris's campaign.

Is it?

And with Trump, you have to look at history.

His economic policy will likely be(whether I support him or any of these policies or not), based purely on his history as president.

Why do you make that assumption? In this first presidential term he had to balance his economic agenda against pissing off the middle and lower classes because he still wanted a second term. This time around that's out of the window.

When he was president he wanted to cut medicare and social security, but didn't because it was unpopular. Now the unpopularity of that won't matter. Same with the temporary middle class tax cuts in his first term. Those were only there to also have a larger permanent tax cut for the rich. Does he really need to pretend he wants to help the poor and middle class if he doesn't need anyone to vote for him for another term? Nope.

The actual economic policy I've heard out of him regarding his next term is adding a universal 10% tariff on all imported goods, which would actually cause massive inflation.

Trump’s 10 Percent Tariffs: Projected Impacts on U.S. Households and Allies - AAF

This research breaks down the estimated costs of presidential candidate Donald Trump’s proposed 10 percent tariff on all imports into the United States.

www.americanactionforum.org

 

[Gergar12]

Is it?



Why do you make that assumption? In this first presidential term he had to balance his economic agenda against pissing off the middle and lower classes because he still wanted a second term. This time around that's out of the window.

When he was president he wanted to cut medicare and social security, but didn't because it was unpopular. Now the unpopularity of that won't matter. Same with the temporary middle class tax cuts in his first term. Those were only there to also have a larger permanent tax cut for the rich. Does he really need to pretend he wants to help the poor and middle class if he doesn't need anyone to vote for him for another term? Nope.

The actual economic policy I've heard out of him regarding his next term is adding a universal 10% tariff on all imported goods, which would actually cause massive inflation.

Trump’s 10 Percent Tariffs: Projected Impacts on U.S. Households and Allies - AAF

This research breaks down the estimated costs of presidential candidate Donald Trump’s proposed 10 percent tariff on all imports into the United States.

www.americanactionforum.org

He can't do tariffs for more than 150 days. So don't buy any very expensive goods during that time unless you absolutely need to.

Trump tariffs - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

Balkinization

A group blog on constitutional law, theory, and politics

web.archive.org

Edit: Also SCOTUS exists.

Edit2: I would like to add that if he intends to get rid of, for example, term limits, he would need to be popular forever, as dictators rule on the consent of their people, who could revolt if he doesn't implement effective policy.

And again I don't inherently plan on voting for him.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

He can't do tariffs for more than 150 days. So don't buy any very expensive goods during that time unless you absolutely need to.

Trump tariffs - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

Balkinization

A group blog on constitutional law, theory, and politics

web.archive.org

Edit: Also SCOTUS exists.

So your solution is for the entire country to not buy anything for half a year? And if people can't hold to that, higher inflation that we saw during the pandemic. Yup, good plan.

Also SCOTUS is in Trump's pocket.

 

[thebobmaster]

Just put your money in stocks instead of buying anything, problem solved.

 

[Gergar12]

So your solution is for the entire country to not buy anything for half a year? And if people can't hold to that, higher inflation that we saw during the pandemic. Yup, good plan.

Also SCOTUS is in Trump's pocket.

SCOTUS hates tariffs and loves the rich more than they love Trump, the rich too hate tariffs. And that's not my plan that's my advice. My plan is for Harris to win without winning the senate so that her stupid unrealized gains taxes that will crash most of the US economy, and the housing market don't pass.

 

[Gergar12]

Just put your money in stocks instead of buying anything, problem solved.

No with stocks, you buy the "dip", buy before the rises, like the Fed announcing a lowering of interest payments, or the best plan: consistently buy the S&P500.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

SCOTUS hates tariffs and loves the rich more than they love Trump, the rich too hate tariffs. And that's not my plan that's my advice. My plan is for Harris to win without winning the senate so that her stupid unrealized gains taxes that will crash most of the US economy, and the housing market don't pass.

The unrealized gains tax that doesn't affect you unless you have over $100 million in assets, and who pay less than 25% of their income in taxes? That's going to crash the US economy? That affects 1% of people, and it affects the people who specifically dodge paying taxes normally.

 

[Gergar12]

The unrealized gains tax that doesn't affect you unless you have over $100 million in assets?

You do realize it will trigger a selloff and lower valuations of the S&P500. Also, many companies will no longer go public in the future, and many will go public to private, meaning the vast majority of non-connected Americans will no longer have an appreciating asset class to invest in other than US bonds, which don't raise fast enough, or CDs, which suffer the same problem.

With housing, it's more like that; it will trickle down to average ordinary Americans eventually like the income tax. Once a long time ago, only the rich paid it, and now almost every American who works full-time, and in many cases, part-time, pays it. People making around 30K like me right now at this moment are paying for it, and not getting Medicaid or Medicare since I don't qualify for either.

 

[tstorm823]

You do realize it will trigger a selloff and lower valuations of the S&P500.

I don't think people realize this isn't a speculative problem, it is the only possibility. When you tax people money they don't actually have on hand, they'll have to sell things to get the money to pay the taxes.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

You do realize it will trigger a selloff and lower valuations of the S&P500. Also, many companies will no longer go public in the future, and many will go public to private, meaning the vast majority of non-connected Americans will no longer have an appreciating asset class to invest in other than US bonds, which don't raise fast enough, or CDs, which suffer the same problem.

Companies won't go public and many public companies will go private? Great! That's a big win. The "investor" class is basically ruining the world right now by chasing the impossibility of infinite growth. Having fewer companies succumb to that would be great.

The majority of Americans won't have assets to invest in? Guess what, they already don't. The vast majority of Americans don't make much money from stocks (if you don't count 401Ks, which wouldn't be taxed any differently under Kamala's tax plan). The truth is that in the stock market for someone to win in a trade someone else has to lose, and the majority of the time the winners are large hedgefunds so the losers are the normal people, who wallstreet refer to as "dumb money." Hedgefunds make the majority of their money through insider trading, which they obscure just enough with "market research" that they don't get caught, and even when they do get caught the fines are always smaller than what they earned through insider trading so there's no reason for them not to do it. Very few of them ever go to jail for it. That's what you as a private trader are competing with, and you can't win.

With housing, it's more like that; it will trickle down to average ordinary Americans eventually like the income tax. Once a long time ago, only the rich paid it, and now almost every American who works full-time, and in many cases, part-time, pays it. People making around 30K like me right now at this moment are paying for it, and not getting Medicaid or Medicare since I don't qualify for either.

Yes, because the rich figured out how to avoid paying income taxes, so the tax burden ended up falling to the middle class. If the government had implemented an unrealized capital gains tax when the rich figured out that they could just take stock instead of income to avoid paying taxes then perhaps you wouldn't even be paying income tax right now.

 

[Gergar12]

View attachment 11757

Companies won't go public and many public companies will go private? Great! That's a big win. The "investor" class is basically ruining the world right now by chasing the impossibility of infinite growth. Having fewer companies succumb to that would be great.

The majority of Americans won't have assets to invest in? Guess what, they already don't. The vast majority of Americans don't make much money from stocks (if you don't count 401Ks, which wouldn't be taxed any differently under Kamala's tax plan). The truth is that in the stock market for someone to win in a trade someone else has to lose, and the majority of the time the winners are large hedgefunds so the losers are the normal people, who wallstreet refer to as "dumb money." Hedgefunds make the majority of their money through insider trading, which they obscure just enough with "market research" that they don't get caught, and even when they do get caught the fines are always smaller than what they earned through insider trading so there's no reason for them not to do it. Very few of them ever go to jail for it. That's what you as a private trader are competing with, and you can't win.



Yes, because the rich figured out how to avoid paying income taxes, so the tax burden ended up falling to the middle class. If the government had implemented an unrealized capital gains tax when the rich figured out that they could just take stock instead of income to avoid paying taxes then perhaps you wouldn't even be paying income tax right now.

Insider trading is illegal, and Congress does it better than most hedge funds. They know who, which government agency sells government contracts to, and which company.

Again, if the S&P500 does get shorted or fall in value, it's temporary, like when Senator Tuberville does it. It will eventually gain value if regulations are not implemented. This is an attack on the knowledgeable and the middle class.

Also, I didn't lose in the stock market, People who buy S&P 500 ETFs have been on a sixty-year winning streak. And even Walmart offers 401k matching, they aren't very good, but they are there.

And you can beat 84–85% of the hedge funds by literally just buying One to three ETFs VOO, SPY, another S&P500 ETF, a dividend ETF like Schwab US Dividend Equity (SCHD) ETF, VTI if you want safety in number and diversification, but VOO and VTI share a lot in common in the type of stocks they hold. And if you want some risk, buy VanEck Semiconductor ETF (note I don't because I think China will bomb Taiwan, so I am waiting until then to buy it).

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Insider trading is illegal, and Congress does it better than most hedge funds. They know who, which government agency sells government contracts to, and which company.

Again, if the S&P500 does get shorted or fall in value, it's temporary, like when Senator Tuberville does it. It will eventually gain value if regulations are not implemented. This is an attack on the knowledgeable and the middle class.

Also, I didn't lose in the stock market, People who buy S&P 500 ETFs have been on a sixty-year winning streak. And even Walmart offers 401k matching, they aren't very good, but they are there.

And you can beat 84–85% of the hedge funds by literally just buying One to three ETFs VOO, SPY, another S&P500 ETF, a dividend ETF like Schwab US Dividend Equity (SCHD) ETF, VTI if you want safety in number and diversification, but VOO and VTI share a lot in common in the type of stocks they hold. And if you want some risk, buy VanEck Semiconductor ETF (note I don't because I think China will bomb Taiwan, so I am waiting until then to buy it).

The S&P500 is entirely held up by Nvidia right now. Nvidia is 1/3 of the S&P500's total return this year.

The moment the AI bubble bursts (and it will, because investors are dumb and don't understand the limitations of AI) the S&P 500 is going to collapse like it did with the dot com bubble.

 

[Satinavian]

In a vacuum, you are correct. After years of Democrats saying they are fighting to save democracy from Republicans. and Republicans saying Democrats only think it's democracy when they win, pressuring out your elected candidate because it looks like he'll lose in the general feels like quite the validation of the Republican perspective.

You might notice that there is even more pressure on Trump on the republican side. They don't want to lose either just because their candidate is old, rambling and unconvincing.

The only difference is that Trump won't step down or even change his campaign style in the face of such pressure.

 

[Agema]

Neither was January 6th.

Jan 6th had an awful lot more features of a what what would be called a coup.

In a vacuum, you are correct. After years of Democrats saying they are fighting to save democracy from Republicans. and Republicans saying Democrats only think it's democracy when they win, pressuring out your elected candidate because it looks like he'll lose in the general feels like quite the validation of the Republican perspective.

The Republicans lost the popular vote in two out of the three last times they got their candidate elected as president. Assuming polls remain roughly static, if Trump ends up winning in 2024 it will be three out of four. It's not exactly a place to be coming from to think you can lecture others on democracy.