2024 ELECTION THREAD

Why do you guys always lie is the question.

They plan to eliminate federal intrusion in public education, yes.

The DoE shouldn't exist, the 10th amendment matter, education is not a federal power at all.

states role in public education are fine.

And they don't plan to touch SS at all to the point Trump got into the platform a pledge to not increase payroll taxes, nor statutory age for access to SS further, nor reduce payouts.

Why do you guys always lie?

yes for them democracy means treating the opposition as enemies, forgetting the opposing view are also americans....

democracy isnt about compromise its about eliminating the opposition because they think they hold the moral high ground given by jesus or i dont know what other ideology they wish to follow like a giant orange pumpkin...

its an incredibly dangerous line of though, extremely close of fascism,communism,theocracy and other form of extremely bad concept of "democratic government"...

probably the actions and narrative of maga is not in the spirit of americans ...

No it is not true that "many private entities hold huge amount of houses, especially not hedge funds lol.

I wrote the solution, 1) let people build in their land 2) let people convert commercial property to residential

But it's a local matter not a federal one. Some states, depending on their constitutions, might have power on the topic over their own localities, some might not, but anyway this is something the federal government can't deal with in any proper sense outside of nudging localities governed by your own party to do the right thing.

Americans should understand they are a federal country, this idea of the federal mommy state solving everything and being responsible for everything is as unamerican as an idea can possibly be, many/most things are local matters (and more will be thanks to the current SCOTUS, which applies the constitution), and both parties should stop pandering to ignorance and stop claiming, in federal elections, to be able to solve what are local political issues

If you are relying on unreasonable arguments, you really need to immunize your supporters from outside influence. Making others out to be an enemy is an easy way of doing this.

This is also becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, because when you start to say that others are your enemy, it won't take long for them to take you up on your word.

In the case of MAGA and modern conservatism, it also represents a genuine threat to individual freedom and rights. It is a movement and ideology that supports extreme powers vested into the executive branch.

I have not heard trump suggest eliminating public education. I would be in favor of a school voucher program which may long-term end up killing public education but that would only occur if the parents of kids voted to do so by preferring to move their kids to private education.

Privatizing the postal service should have happened years ago. It is hard to imagine a good enough reason to allow the gov't to still control such a non-essential industry considering there is such a lack of proof the gov't does good controlling any non-essential industry.

Taking a black and white stand to anything political is a bad look. If you want to argue that some regulations and laws are onerous and inhibit corporations from providing goods and services, then fine. I'm good with that.

But saying that ALL regulations and laws are inherently bad because "free market" then you are burying your head in the sand.

I mean, we don't have child labor laws because some communist decided to shackle factory owners. We have them because some dipshits in the past were using children for basically slave labor.

We have environmental regulations because some dipshits decided to pour toxic waste in our drinking water sources.

I mean, the list goes on.

He never did, it's just leftists lying as usual.

There were talks to abolish the DoE, although that didn't happen even with a trifecta, but Trump at least weakened it a bit and had it led by a person who wanted it to be abolished which was nice for a change.

But that as i wrote is just because education is not a federal matter *AT ALL* and should go back to states and localities in full where it belongs.

Postal service operates at a loss to cover unprofitable areas. Private or not you would need to give public money to some entity to do the same. At that point, unless the public postal service is worse in it's execution that other operators (i need data to confirm/deny it) you can keep it public, doesn't matter much.

Idea is that if you want to guarantee coverage of snail mail in 100% of the country, because it's a fundamental essential service or whatever (debatable, but not absurd), and you want that to be subsidized by the general population (you live in super-bum-**** island , you can't be asked a zillion to be delivered mail), then public money has to step it to cover that.

Once you have public money stepping it, having a public option in competition with the private sector isn't the end of the world tbh, there are far more pressing issues.

But the postal service should be allowed to do banking in full with no hassles, it worked very well everywhere that was allowed (in Italy in particular it worked exceptionally well), capillar coverage reduces the unbanked population and so on and on and most of all, it makes money (so you can reduce taxes/transfers to cover for the above unprofitable service you want to guarantee).

That's one of the rare leftwing proposals that should be adopted ASAP

This is from Sanders platform

/Allow every post office to offer basic and affordable banking services and end lending discrimination
We must ensure all Americans have access to basic financial services and end the exploitative practices of these modern day loan sharks. We will utilize the 31,000 post offices across the country to provide basic banking services. This isn’t radical, or even unusual. More than 1.5 billion people across the world have access to some form of banking at their local post offices. In fact, we used to do it here. From 1911 to 1967, you could bank at your local post office in the United States. In the middle of the 20th century, our postal banks serviced 4 million customers.

The Postal Board of Governors and Postmaster General must work with the postal unions to provide banking services. Together, we can create a fair banking system for all. Post offices would offer basic checking and savings accounts, debit cards, direct deposit, online banking services, and low-interest, small dollar loans. It would end the racial disparities in access to banking and access to credit, while also stopping financial institutions from reaping massive fees off the poor and underserved. USPS must act now to use existing authority to implement pilot postal banks.

The post office guarantees to deliver your mail in snow and rain, in heat and in gloom of night. It delivers your mail whether you live in a city skyscraper or down a long country road. It can do the same for banking./

And is good even if it's wrapped in leftist logic, the backbone is solid and not leftist, just reasonable

We are arguing that all regulations ABOUT PRICES are bad in sectors with competition, that's the claim, that's the topic, that's what Harris is proposing to do.

And that "price gouging" has to be defined otherwise it's a meaningless expression which you can't use to base regulation

I'm ok with this, except the part where you claim Harris is proposing. She specifically talked about price gouging, not price controls. I mean, I doubt the promise has any teeth and it's probably just a typical campaign promise. But to characterize it as some sort of communist threat is silly.

Ok define gouging precisely , as we asked 10+ times already, in a competitive sector

Luciom has now been successfully added to your ignore list. You will now be returned to where you were.

This message is hidden because Luciom is on your ignore list.

This message is hidden because Luciom is on your ignore list.

I doubt your proposal would work in the way you imagine.

In any case, it's worth remembering that you can't make residential housing prices drop without hurting the property values of existing home owners. The overwhelming majority of residential residences are owned by individuals, not large corporations. And many of those individual home owners are barely getting by as is.

The last time residential housing prices dropped sharply, it was an economic disaster.

Throw in some equity reimbursement if you’d like

Do you think the disaster happened because of prices dropping sharply? Not sure why you said that

I agree that anti price-gouging laws are generally a bad idea, mainly because they almost always end up being inefficient solutions to problems that need more direct solutions.

The decline was inevitable because numerous forces were pushing prices higher than they should have been in the first place. It couldn't continue forever.

But there is no denying that declines in property values were devastating to many, many home owners.

can you define price gouging in a competitive sector then, given you disagree with laws against it? what is it?

Seems fairly obvious. If you want universal mail service/rates you have to operate certain rural/low density areas at a loss. Either the government has to do it or we have to pay off private companies to do it.

Mail sucks. I could do without ever receiving mail. Electronic everything is fine. And for packages, Amazon has their own trucks. And if I order from elsewhere can pay some private company.

You either die a hero or you live long enough to become the leftist

If I usually disagree with price gouging laws, then I should be able to define price gouging? Why? The difficult of defining price gouging in an intelligent way for the purposes of such laws is part of the problem.

Why did their home value matter unless they sold it?

Ok but you need some model in your mind of what gouging is, i don't have one in competitive sectors, it can't definitionally exist any malfeasance about pricing if there is competition.

Egg producer X decides to hike 78% because of problems in egg production, others hike 54% because that's the actual amount of the input cost shock, egg producer X goes down in price or doesn't sell. "gouging" vaguely defined as evil behaviour over some acceptable threshold can't exist with competition in any definitional way!

A crazy guy starts selling water bottles at $100 because of some marketing ploy, celebrity endorsement and whatever. Is that price gouging? what's price gouging? i don't even understand the assumptions of the crowd here.