OT Election Thread

[PlayerUp]

it's nancy, and whatever you think of her politics, she's been very effective at her job for a long time

There are much better options to lead.

Such as?

Hakeem Jeffries

[dougthonus]

Agreed, the rich got richer during the pandemic and the poor got poorer.

To be fair, that's American capitalism.

Its not.

It's what has become of American capitalism.

And its dangerous.

Well, its been moving in that direction aggressively since Reagan which is now a super long time. I agree its dangerous, but it isn't going to stop it. It is specifically the Republican party that has pushed for this extremely directly. They've been practicing trickle down economics where the plan was to give lots of money to the rich and hope they generate more jobs with that money. Not that I think the Republican party was thinking "ahh lets steal from the poor", but they absolutely were thinking "how can we lower taxes on the wealthy and make corporate profits better" and while doing so the impact was that over time they did that.

[dougthonus]

blatantly disingenuous statistic

march 18 was nearly the bottom of the stock market crash

the vast majority of investors are doing better since march 18, not just the billionaires. the question is how the billionaires are doing since FEBRUARY 18. and the answer is probably "marginally better." just like the stock market. there are very obvious reasons why jeff bezos and zuckerberg are wealthier due to the pandemic, and there's nothing systemic about it

what's fair to discuss is why wall street is so disconnected from main street right now

Ignore billionaires and replace with capital providers (which are all investors), whom are up 7% on the year while laborers are obviously suffering considerably (or what you say, wall street vs main street).

[dougthonus]

Would the Trump cult die for their idol? HELL NO. It's just posturing. They like their trucks, HD TV's and fast food - in short, their lives - way too much.

There will be no civil war, there will be no pro-Trump riots. In fact, it remains to be seen if even Trump himself has the energy to keep causing trouble. He's an old man, and although he's addicted to publicity and "winning", the lure of golf is strong. I wouldn't be shocked if we heard very little from him over the next couple of months.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were some incident here. The wack jobs tend to come out in these type of situations one way or the other, but there won't be a civil war because even if everyone got past the points you made (which I agree they won't), they'd never have the infrastructure or organization to pull it off even if they had the guns and the people.

[Ice Man]

Ignore billionaires and replace with capital providers (which are all investors), whom are up 7% on the year while laborers are obviously suffering considerably (or what you say, wall street vs main street).

Capital up, labor down. The story for the past 40 years. By and large, the people seem fine with that. There is more support for cutting taxes than for redistributive policies. As witnessed by the rejection of the Fair Tax Proposal. (I hate the name, I am not arguing that the tax change would be "Fair," nor I am necessarily arguing that the proposal should have been passed. I merely point out that the proposal unquestionably aimed to help labor at the expense of capital, and the people chose otherwise.)

[dougthonus]

Capital up, labor down. The story for the past 40 years. By and large, the people seem fine with that. There is more support for cutting taxes than for redistributive policies. As witnessed by the rejection of the Fair Tax Proposal. (I hate the name, I am not arguing that the tax change would be "Fair," nor I am necessarily arguing that the proposal should have been passed. I merely point out that the proposal unquestionably aimed to help labor at the expense of capital, and the people chose otherwise.)

I think its gone so far that you can never attack the uber wealthy on a tax basis, they can just hide the money too well. Capital gains being taxed at a lower rate than income is really the big kick in the balls that got us here though as well as breaks on dividend tax rates for a long time.

[Ice Man]

I think its gone so far that you can never attack the uber wealthy on a tax basis, they can just hide the money too well. Capital gains being taxed at a lower rate than income is really the big kick in the balls that got us here though as well as breaks on dividend tax rates for a long time.

As one who now lives mostly on capital rather than labor, I cannot overstate how much the tax laws favor us.

[Bullbleep]

I think its gone so far that you can never attack the uber wealthy on a tax basis, they can just hide the money too well. Capital gains being taxed at a lower rate than income is really the big kick in the balls that got us here though as well as breaks on dividend tax rates for a long time.

As one who now lives mostly on capital rather than labor, I cannot overstate how much the tax laws favor us.

Don’t forget the step-up basis, which is pure unadulterated tax avoidance...

[moorhosj]

Capital up, labor down. The story for the past 40 years. By and large, the people seem fine with that. There is more support for cutting taxes than for redistributive policies. As witnessed by the rejection of the Fair Tax Proposal. (I hate the name, I am not arguing that the tax change would be "Fair," nor I am necessarily arguing that the proposal should have been passed. I merely point out that the proposal unquestionably aimed to help labor at the expense of capital, and the people chose otherwise.)

I’d be careful about pulling too many conclusions from the “Fair Tax” vote. A lot of things specific to Illinois made it a tough sell. Incredibly wealthy opponents, retirement income still isn’t taxed, they never tried to change the constitution on the pension issue, etc.

We can look at Arizona and see a similar tax did pass. The difference is that they addressed their pension problems beforehand and this tax was primarily for schools. Our tax proposal was to make up for bi-partisan mismanagement over the past 50 years (a mostly Dem legislature and mostly Rep governors during that time).

[Dresden]

I don't think you realize what is to come here.

There are so many demographic groups in America compared to before. They all want major changes. The reason they went out to vote Biden over Trump was they were hopeful certain things can happen under a Biden administration. The reality is Biden in no way can offer all these path to citizenships, boost immigration, help the black community, help the progressives, help the poor community. It's just not possible and they're expecting so much from him while at the same time Biden is getting big dollars from donors in wall street pushing him into office which we all know that means Biden promised there would be minor changes under his administration.

Some are already getting negative about a Biden administration but give it more time these groups will start turning on Biden as well. For me personally, if I was in Bidens shoes I would focus in certain areas being the citizens of this country 1st and then once major progress has been made, then focus on non citizens after that. If you try to do too many things, next to nothing will get done.

Progressives will push for their agenda, but they also can see what they are up against in the senate. It's not Biden that is going to hold them back, it's Mitch McConnell. Pelosi will have her hands full trying to craft legislation in the House that satisfies both the progressives, the moderates, and will still have a chance in the Senate.

I think what you don't realize is that many of the Left's projects are actually in line with a majority of American's. Things like universal health coverage, raising taxes on the rich, taking action on climate change, doing something about student debt, creating a more sustainable economy through investment in green job creation, more focus on early childhood education and child poverty. These things have widespread support. The challenge will be to get the Senate to agree to any of it.

[Ice Man]

Things like universal health coverage, raising taxes on the rich, taking action on climate change, doing something about student debt, creating a more sustainable economy through investment in green job creation, more focus on early childhood education and child poverty. These things have widespread support. The challenge will be to get the Senate to agree to any of it.

They have widespread support when people are polled about the individual issues, but politicians who adopt such platforms are labeled as socialists and in most districts lose to opponents who have views that don't poll well, such as reversing gay marriage, loosing gun regulations, and rolling back the ACA.

Seemingly strange but true -- and thus a challenge for politicians who wish to push forward such agendas.

[moorhosj]

You state a lot of truth there. Politics and who is in office has very little effect on us the little people day to day, I guarantee that Biden is more interested in what Mitch McConnell thinks than any thought I have in my head good or bad. They really are a different class of people and they try hard to sell us that they care about us, which in a broad sweeping way they may, a little but but ultimately they are concerned with what their contemporaries think and feel. It’s not anything new, goes back to the beginning of man.

I understand what you are trying to say, but this is exactly how the system is set up to work. Mitch McConnell has been elected to the Senate to represent what his constituents think and want.

I disagree that who is in office has very little effect on the little people. In my mind, that is ultimate lie that we've been told in order to just accept poor governance. If the Democrats won the Senate, a $15 minimum wage would have been likely. That would impact a lot of people day-to-day, as would improved health care access among other policies (child care, education, etc.).

Just look at Obamacare, my mom was unable to get insurance due to her pre-existing condition. Her job cut her hours to 34.5 so she didn't qualify for the company healthcare plan. Once the ACA passed, she used the exchange to purchase a healthcare plan and made her first doctor's appointment in a year. At that appointment, we found out she had cancer. The cancer still beat her after a few years. Without the ACA, we wouldn't have had that time together, she would have had zero options, and we would have lot her much sooner. If the ACA existed before she lost health insurance, maybe we could have saved her, maybe she would have met her grandsons. This is obviously personal for me, but there are stories like this all over the place and sometimes we need to pause to understand that some of these things are actually life-and-death decisions.

[jmajew]

Capital up, labor down. The story for the past 40 years. By and large, the people seem fine with that. There is more support for cutting taxes than for redistributive policies. As witnessed by the rejection of the Fair Tax Proposal. (I hate the name, I am not arguing that the tax change would be "Fair," nor I am necessarily arguing that the proposal should have been passed. I merely point out that the proposal unquestionably aimed to help labor at the expense of capital, and the people chose otherwise.)

I’d be careful about pulling too many conclusions from the “Fair Tax” vote. A lot of things specific to Illinois made it a tough sell. Incredibly wealthy opponents, retirement income still isn’t taxed, they never tried to change the constitution on the pension issue, etc.

We can look at Arizona and see a similar tax did pass. The difference is that they addressed their pension problems beforehand and this tax was primarily for schools. Our tax proposal was to make up for bi-partisan mismanagement over the past 50 years (a mostly Dem legislature and mostly Rep governors during that time).

I could not agree with this more. People aren't against higher taxes. They are against what the money is being spent on. It is one thing to tax people more and to use that money to invest in projects/things that will make us more productive in the future, but it is a completely different think to tax more to merely give more in welfare. I think the way these types of things are packaged and explained to people is critical.

We say we want free college education, but we don't delve into how that will actually work. Our higher education system is much different than Germany's which is what most want to replicate. Not everyone actually goes to college similar to ones in the states. The vast majority go into an apprenticeship program/trade school. Those last two years and then they go get jobs. Maybe a better explanation of what that system would look like would improve the chances of it getting full throated bipartisan support. If it is the government just paying our tuition costs then my guess is it won't pass because that would mean anyone even if they don't' have the aptitude anyone can go to a 4 year school for free. That's not what countries that have free higher education have.

[Dresden]

Things like universal health coverage, raising taxes on the rich, taking action on climate change, doing something about student debt, creating a more sustainable economy through investment in green job creation, more focus on early childhood education and child poverty. These things have widespread support. The challenge will be to get the Senate to agree to any of it.

They have widespread support when people are polled about the individual issues, but politicians who adopt such platforms are labeled as socialists and in most districts lose to opponents who have views that don't poll well, such as reversing gay marriage, loosing gun regulations, and rolling back the ACA.

Seemingly strange but true -- and thus a challenge for politicians who wish to push forward such agendas.

Joe Biden adopted a platform that included all those things, and he won the national vote by 4-5 million votes.

Democrats can't be afraid of labels. Obamacare was decried as socialist medicine, and was not very popular when it first passed, but 12 years later, it's actually quite popular, now that people see how well it works. Democrats do need to work on their messaging I think. they have to do a better job of selling these things to the American people not as part of a broad leftist agenda, but as measures that are going to help ordinary Americans.

[moorhosj]

Joe Biden adopted a platform that included all those things, and he won the national vote by 4-5 million votes.

Democrats can't be afraid of labels. Obamacare was decried as socialist medicine, and was not very popular when it first passed, but 12 years later, it's actually quite popular, now that people see how well it works. Democrats do need to work on their messaging I think. they have to do a better job of selling these things to the American people not as part of a broad leftist agenda, but as measures that are going to help ordinary Americans.

You are correct, but in between Obamacare and today the Democrats have lost legislative control across the country. Republicans have run against Obamacare for 10 years and been very successful (without ever even providing an alternative). They are fighting these policies because they know that once Americans experience them, we won't accept going back. Pre-existing conditions is the perfect example, no politician will come out against it, it is here to stay, but Democrats have paid a heavy political price for being "right".

[Dresden]

Joe Biden adopted a platform that included all those things, and he won the national vote by 4-5 million votes.

Democrats can't be afraid of labels. Obamacare was decried as socialist medicine, and was not very popular when it first passed, but 12 years later, it's actually quite popular, now that people see how well it works. Democrats do need to work on their messaging I think. they have to do a better job of selling these things to the American people not as part of a broad leftist agenda, but as measures that are going to help ordinary Americans.

You are correct, but in between Obamacare and today the Democrats have lost legislative control across the country. Republicans have run against Obamacare for 10 years and been very successful (without ever even providing an alternative). They are fighting these policies because they know that once Americans experience them, we won't accept going back. Pre-existing conditions is the perfect example, no politician will come out against it, it is here to stay, but Democrats have paid a heavy political price for being "right".

I don't agree. Democrats did very well in the '18 elections, taking back the house, and it was their stance on health care that was the primary driver of their wins.

[Dresden]

I think Biden is going to approach all these issues with small steps, not huge ones. He will first tackle the virus and the economy- providing assistance to struggling businesses and individuals who have been hit hard by the pandemic. That will not be very controversial. Once we are over this crisis, he will turn to other parts of his agenda, but will do so in a bi-partisan way, if at all possible. Tax reform I think might be palatable to the Senate if done in the right way. Infrastructure is something that should get bi-partisan support.

Expanding Obamacare will be a tougher sell, but we'll see.

[dougthonus]

This pandemic has shifted an enormous amount of wealth from small businesses to big businesses. When book stores, toy stores, bars, restaurants and local gyms were shut down; people simply shifted that spending to Amazon, Walmart, Costco, Peloton, and Uber Eats. The stock market growth simply reflects the fact that smaller businesses (not publicly traded) are getting crushed while larger businesses (publicly traded) continue to grow. That’s how GDP goes down and stocks go up.

Planet Money had a recent podcast about it for those interested: https://www.npr.org/2020/11/04/931496888/whats-next-for-the-economy

While this is somewhat true, the PE ratio of the stock market is at a crazy high right now historically:

https://www.multpl.com/s-p-500-pe-ratio

This suggests that the market is expecting massive profit growth over the next couple years. Maybe that will happen because corporate profits decreased temporarily due to covid and will bounce back to normal and our PE ratio will level out again, but if that isn't true then we are in a massive bubble.

[moorhosj]

While this is somewhat true, the PE ratio of the stock market is at a crazy high right now historically:

https://www.multpl.com/s-p-500-pe-ratio

This suggests that the market is expecting massive profit growth over the next couple years. Maybe that will happen because corporate profits decreased temporarily due to covid and will bounce back to normal and our PE ratio will level out again, but if that isn't true then we are in a massive bubble.

They may be expecting massive revenue growth, or they may just have nowhere else to put their money, or they may be willing to pay higher multiples for "recurring" revenue, or some other reason. Look at Apple, their revenue is basically flat from 2018, but their stock price has gone from $44 to $120, with a P/E ratio of 37 today compared to 15 in 2018. During that time, they shifted much of that revenue to recurring services away from just hardware sales. Either the market thinks that recurring revenue is worth 3X one-time revenue, or there is some type of froth.

stock price: https://www.google.com/finance/quote/AAPL:NASDAQ
P/E ratio: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AAPL/apple/pe-ratio

[moorhosj]

I don't agree. Democrats did very well in the '18 elections, taking back the house, and it was their stance on health care that was the primary driver of their wins.

You are correct that healthcare helped the Democrats take back the House in 2018 and also added some Governors, they also lost 2 critical seats in the Senate.