Planet America

[President Bush]

Former President Donald Trump lauded a wealthy donor on whom he bestowed the Presidential Medal of Freedom as having gotten the "better" award compared to the top military honor, the Medal of Honor, because those recipients are often deceased or injured.

Speaking at a campaign event intended to discuss antisemitism, Trump was introduced by Miriam Adelson, a wealthy Republican donor and widow of Sheldon Adelson, who pumped millions of dollars of his own money into electing Republican candidates. He died in 2021.

“I watched Sheldon sitting so proud in the White House when we gave Miriam the Presidential Medal of Freedom," Trump said at his New Jersey resort.

"That’s the highest award you can get as a civilian. It’s the equivalent of the Congressional Medal of Honor," Trump continued, referring to the highest military honor bestowed for valor in combat. The Medal of Honor is often mistakenly called the Congressional Medal of Honor.

"But civilian version, it’s actually much better because everyone [who] gets the Congressional Medal of Honor, they're soldiers. They’re either in very bad shape because they’ve been hit so many times by bullets or they’re dead," Trump concluded. “She gets it, and she’s a healthy, beautiful woman, and they’re rated equal, but she got the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and she got it for — and that’s through committees and everything else.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-e ... rcna166855

What a piece of shit.

[Meadmaker]

I'm so disgusted this morning.

I'm reading about Kamala Harris' "economic plan". Let me summarize it: Give away money, but no one has to pay taxes.

Does she believe this nonsense, or is it pure pandering to idiots who vote? I'm sure that when I was a child, reality seemed important, or at least significant, to politicians. That seems to be a thing of the past.

I'll still vote for her, because Trump is so awful, but I really wish that I had a sane choice this November.



I truly fear that this oft-cited quote is becoming reality:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

[President Bush]

I'm so disgusted this morning.

I'm reading about Kamala Harris' "economic plan". Let me summarize it: Give away money, but no one has to pay taxes.

Speaking of giving something away...

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2024/08/14/d ... luntz.html?

[Admin]

I'm so disgusted this morning.

Wow. "Disgusted"? Very strong emotion for a pretty minor piece of policy.

Anyway...

I'm reading about Kamala Harris' "economic plan". Let me summarize it: Give away money, but no one has to pay taxes.

You're against your government investing in young families and people's ability to own or rent a home?

Bit harsh, mate.

Also, I see she's removing some tax incentives, which is exactly the same putting new taxes in place, and I'm betting very few of those tax breaks are used by people earning under a couple of hundred grand a year, i.e. the entire middle and poorer classes.

OMG, how will she pay for it al??

Same way as America pays for everything - borrow the money! I don't know when USA last ran a budget surplus, but I'd expect it to be around 1970. You borrow trillions to keep your military armed, and now you're complaining about a couple of hundred billion for families.

Not cool.

And you're also ignoring the trickle-up nature of the spending. If you give poorer people money, they spend it, creating taxes and jobs. The net effect of the policies is fuck all.

Does she believe this nonsense, or is it pure pandering to idiots who vote? I'm sure that when I was a child, reality seemed important, or at least significant, to politicians. That seems to be a thing of the past.

If you want Harris to implement only funded options, you'd have some serious tax increases, which is political suicide.

I'll still vote for her, because Trump is so awful, but I really wish that I had a sane choice this November.

Odd, innit?

They look like the sanest policies I've ever seen from an American presidential candidate. Short of Liz Warren's corporate profit-sharing, I think it's sensible and considered and will sell very nicely.

The funny bit is you're echoing the official Republican line with argument against those policies.

I truly fear that this oft-cited quote is becoming reality:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

Winston Churchill

No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all the others.

Britain and some European countries have been democratic far before USA and they seem to be coping quite well. The problem in America has been Republicans shifting further right and Democrats following them. Kamala looks to be returning to closer to the centre, and that's a good thing.

[Meadmaker]

You're against your government investing in young families and people's ability to own or rent a home?

Yes.

I'm not a strict large-L Libertarian when it comes to economic manipulation, but it takes a lot to convince me that giving away money for nothing is a good idea. Sometimes it is, but such tactics should be used sparingly, to say the least.

Also, I see she's removing some tax incentives,

When I wrote my post, that wasn't being reported. It was reported she was creating new ones. I'll check out and see if there's updates. If you are correct, then good on her. (Unless, of couse, they are tax incentives I use, in which case it is clearly equal to communism. Yes, I'm joking.)

I don't know when USA last ran a budget surplus,

2000

And you're also ignoring the trickle-up nature of the spending. If you give poorer people money, they spend it, creating taxes and jobs. The net effect of the policies is fuck all.

The Republicans says the same thing about tax cuts.

They're wrong, too.

There's no something for nothing. When you move money from one place to another, the same amount of money ends up getting spent, and the same amount of jobs are created and the same amount of taxes are generated.

Where it gets complicated is understanding the difference between money and wealth, and what sorts of government spending create wealth, versus destroying wealth. Both sorts of spending result in jobs and tax revenue, but only one of them is a good idea.

Does she believe this nonsense, or is it pure pandering to idiots who vote? I'm sure that when I was a child, reality seemed important, or at least significant, to politicians. That seems to be a thing of the past.

If you want Harris to implement only funded options, you'd have some serious tax increases, which is political suicide.

So....pandering to idiots.

And sadly, the US electorate is mostly idiots, in a practical sense. As you note, it's political suicide to acknowledge that taxes have to be used to pay for spending. It's reality, but it's political suicide.

I blame Reagan, by the way. It was voodoo economics then. It's voodoo economics now. Republicans and Democrats have different flavors of voodoo.

Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich balanced the budget. How? Tax increases and spending cuts. And the economy soared during those years. (I don't think the fiscal policies caused the growth. Neither did they hinder the growth.)

The funny bit is you're echoing the official Republican line with argument against those policies.

Only half of the Republican line. The other half is that you should cut taxes without cutting spending. Well.....they always say they'll cut spending, but they almost never do. They are specific about their tax cuts. Vague about spending. They usually end up cutting or slowing the growth in social spending, and massively increasing military spending.

I truly fear that this oft-cited quote is becoming reality:

Winston Churchill

No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all the others.

Indeed. What worries me is that it's coming to an end. I can't compare very well US politics to other "developed" countries, because I live in America and no one ever talks about what happens in the rest of the world, except for royal families. Maybe other countries all have that same "something for nothing" attitude that has gripped the US. Whoever it was that said the origianl quote, though, recognized that if the voters behaved the way he described, democratic government is unsustainable.

[President Bush]

[Admin]

Yes.

I'm not a strict large-L Libertarian when it comes to economic manipulation, but it takes a lot to convince me that giving away money for nothing is a good idea. Sometimes it is, but such tactics should be used sparingly, to say the least.

I'm out.

I've always lived in a country where social security isn't just an ideal, but an essential.

Thanks to that, I'm unable to imagine what kind of person doesn't think it's a good idea and I've made a point of not trying to understand.

Black and white.

[Admin]

/Trump3.

That is fucking magnificent!

[Meadmaker]

Yes.

I'm not a strict large-L Libertarian when it comes to economic manipulation, but it takes a lot to convince me that giving away money for nothing is a good idea. Sometimes it is, but such tactics should be used sparingly, to say the least.

I'm out.

I've always lived in a country where social security isn't just an ideal, but an essential.

Thanks to that, I'm unable to imagine what kind of person doesn't think it's a good idea and I've made a point of not trying to understand.

Black and white.

Old age pensions and some sort of "safety net" so that people don't starve or go without medicine seem like good ideas to me.

Helping people purchase homes seems like a bad idea to me.

ETA: When I was young, I thought large scale education subsidies and subsidized student loans were a good idea. Then I grew up.

[arthwollipot]

ETA: When I was young, I thought large scale education subsidies and subsidized student loans were a good idea. Then I grew up.

I take it you'd be against the idea of a Universal Basic Income then.