I'm hesitant to give Obama credit, but I think Trump claiming that the unemployment rate was 30, 40, 50% during the election and immediately taking credit for the unemployment numbers in january 2017 was so disingenuous that it truly boggles the mind. Anyone that gives Trump credit for the current trajectory of unemployment numbers is beyond the pale.
Giving Obama credit to me is at the very least questionable - things were at rock bottom, they could almost only go up (and I supported Obama). There are so few absolutes to hold on to in terms of economic indicators for the layperson, but its hard to see how the Obama years were an economic catastrophe, and unfortunately we'll never know what the effect of a larger stimulus might have been (or no stimulus for that matter).
This is inaccurate. People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not considered part of the labor force. For instance this would include retired persons, students, people taking care of children or other family members, and those who have no desire at all to work. Here [1] is a brief on the reasons people are not counted.
Source? People tend to put much more thoughtful words in his mouth after the fact trying to make what he says seem more reasonable, but if you have a source I'd gladly review it.
In the meantime, politifact has a good breakdown of what he says about the issue and where the numbers come from (spoiler, they make some wild assumptions) [1].
Not to mention how unpopular this is with his evangelical supporters (which is to say, 80+% of all evangelicals), private prison companies, etc.
This won't happen, this is the kind of thing he throws out there and walks back or just forgets about. He gets the benefit of giving someone a moment of "hey, thats pretty reasonable!" that might stick with them, despite the fact that there is almost no way he'll maintain that position or ever do anything to achieve it.
Serious question, what incentive is there for this to be done on a large scale by anyone?
The EPA is being systematically dismantled and the official line of the government (or at least, those in charge of the government) is that climate change is not man made. If it is just a natural process, how could our food systems have any impact on it?
I can't imagine how this wouldn't add at least some costs to feed prices, and my guess is farmers are operating on razor thin margins already. Without some government regulations that put a price on greenhouse gasses why would anyone implement this except on boutique scales?
>... dairy farmer named Joe Dorgan inadvertently conducted an experiment on his herd in Prince Edward Island, Canada. Dorgan noticed cows that grazed on washed-up seaweed in paddocks along the shore were healthier and more productive ... and found the new diet saved him money and induced “rip-roaring heats,” or longer cycles of reproductive activity.
Thats great, but it only saved him money because it washed up right on his shore. It saves a small farmer money to let their cows graze on lush green pastures that they need to keep eaten down anyways but that doesn't mean that letting cows graze on lush pastures saves the industry money overall. In general its going to cost more more than likely to get seaweed into the supply chain. Its a race to the bottom, it has to be cheaper than subsidized corn which almost nothing is.
Thats crazy, that depends entirely on people being able to afford to pay more for the same basic product. What economics would indicate that this would happen?
You can get antibiotic free meat from whole foods etc, but what do you think is consumed at higher quantities?
If its purely up to buyers choice, it will not happen unless there is a cost associated with carbon output.
Lot's of people pay extra for "organic", "grass-fed", "cage-free", "fair trade", "kosher" and other certifications on products now. "Organic" has just about taken over the produce section in my supermarket in the last few years. And "USDA organic" has dubious value for a lot of products.
If you observe that people don't often pay for "antibiotic free" meat it's likely because they don't see it as a worthwhile value proposition.
If you say that buyers won't choose to pay for global-warming-safe beef, while watching them choose to pay for chemical-pesticide-free beef then that is just another way of saying that no one cares about global warming, and I don't think that is the case.
I don't think the democratic party has a hold over the African American voting block in so much as it has been the only real choice for them for the last 40 or 50 years (unless you have Stockholm syndrome that is). Couple that with the increase in leadership roles and overall candidates and the democratic party is becoming more representative by the day. This results in more and better legislation targeting the issues of black Americans.
Contrast that with the republican party, how well are poor whites represented in the party (aside from near-constant lip service)?
The republican party platform combines the roughly orthogonal financial interests of the wealthy and moral interests of white evangelicals. Some of the key demands of poor whites are addressed within that latter category.
Having "control" over cities does not mean being able to cancel out systemic racism and discrimination. That doesn't mean I give the left a pass, but it has been a constant fight to make progress of any kind, especially given that cities don't often have the resources to deal with systemic issues. Cities are on the front line of these issues doing symptom relief (affordable housing, homelessness etc). It often requires legislation to tackle systemic issues, like redlining[0].
To compound that, a lot of urban areas that are "controlled by the left" are at the mercy of their state governments for a lot of funding and the ability to make major changes. Some states are disallowing their cities from enforcing their own minimum wage increases while also enshrining discrimination as legal.
Expecting cities to be able to take on a national issue stemming from the enslavement of millions of people and the subsequent economic subjugation of said people is like expecting developers to be able to take on decades old technical debt while completing their day to day work.
We do it for the illusion of freedom which is used to trick unfortunately ignorant people out of services that would cost the wealthy a bigger percentage of their income.
"Choose what X is right for you and your family"
This allows the wealthy the chance to choose a better level of healthcare, schools, and basically everything else leaving the rest of the nation to choose only what they can afford (guess what, its not much). By patronizing the nation by saying "You're so smart, you know better what you need than a stupid Washington bureaucrat like me!", they stroke our ego's just enough to convince people that they are able to get a better deal (ie, beat the system).
It infuriates me that the people who ran for office and chose to "represent" us in a lot of cases completely abdicate their responsibility to do anything. Not to be partisan, but one party is a lot worse about this than another, to me if you go through all the trouble to put yourself in government and enrich yourself handsomely while you are there, at least fucking pretend you are going to try and solve something rather than this self-deprecation that comes out of the Republican party.
Even though Sotomayor was appointed by Obama, she's a lifelong independent. She probably aligns closest with the left, but from her bio I did not get the impression that she is a ideologue.
OP might be exaggerating, but they are not talking about who lobbies, they are talking about the politicians who pass the bills and implement the tax cuts. In that they are right. In the house, 191 democrats voted against the tax overhaul, 0 voted for it. 227 republicans voted for it, 12 against it [0]. The senate was much the same [1].
You can say what you want, but this is a republican tax bill no matter who it benefits. It was supposed to benefit the rich, and thats what it does (I'm sure if it was possible to isolate by party they would have done so). It won't discriminate in who it hurts in the long run either (the middle class and the poor, like usual). The wealthy are going to take 90% of whatever economic gains result, they won't end up in schools or in communities, again like usual. Unemployment is already low and cant go much lower without even more illegal immigrants and wages will probably continue on their current trajectory and we'll be arguing for the next decade about who is to blame. My guess is some hidden variable will be scapegoated to explain why it didn't work.
> I'm sure if it was possible to isolate by party they would have done so
It actually does seem to do that fairly effectively from my understanding, by restricting the deductions those in high tax states (ie Democrat) can claim.
I should have said benefits the rich disproportionately. They are throwing most of us a bone (sometimes even a half-decent bone) while treating themselves to a 11 course meal. I don't think that this is a controversial statement, its just how it is going to be. They know that a few thousand dollars in the pockets of average Americans is a huge deal, even if it results in millions in the pockets of others.
The question is, in the long run, does that couple grand benefit us more than it costs us in terms of long term deficits, reductions in government services, etc?
The "hell yeah I'll take more money anyday!" mentality is what they depend on to sell the bill and it works.
It is more complicated than that, but even on a basic level it is not proportional [0]. If you consider the purpose of a progressive tax system it gets even murkier.
The liberal media narrative for every tax cut ever is that it only benefits the rich. Forget that your paycheck and mine saw taxes go down, it was only for the rich according to the media.
Got any sources on that? I expect you'll see a lot of them say it benefits the rich more, but saying it only benefits the rich? Not that I've seen, not legitimate sources (I know its hard to tell the difference between a left-wing blog and a multi-Pulitzer winning newspaper over 100 years old).
I should have said it disproportionately benefits the rich and in the long run I think it probably does only benefit the rich because the middle class and the poor will be hurt by the cuts necessary to pay for the thing and the resulting deficits.
Here are examples of the "liberal media" saying its disproportionate, not that it only benefits the rich. I hate to break it to you, but most of the "liberal media" is pretty nuanced, it may not say what you want but you don't see nearly as much "always/never" as you would expect.
That may be true (I haven't checked), but my guess is that germany (and most other western nations) offer a lot more government services for that level of tax. Taxing the middle class here the same as say, norway doesn't make sense unless you offer the same services. My half-decent insurance plan is one of my biggest monthly expenses and I'm lucky that it doesn't impact me too much. Many other "middle-class" people are barely getting by as it is.
> Taxing the middle class here the same as say, norway doesn't make sense unless you offer the same services.
My point is that the bellyaching in America is targeted at the wrong thing. It's not about how much taxes rich people or corporations pay. That's not why Germany has free education and we don't. It's that a household making $100k pays 20% taxes here and 40% in Germany. That's the major difference between the countries.
Exactly. Lots of talk of taxing the rich, but if you look at other countries, the "rich" are clearly middle class. No other way to raise enough revenue.
"The U.S. spends more public money on healthcare per capita than Canada, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Switzerland, France, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. In fact, each year the U.S. government spends $4,197 per person, while the OECD median spend is $3,677."
Giving Obama credit to me is at the very least questionable - things were at rock bottom, they could almost only go up (and I supported Obama). There are so few absolutes to hold on to in terms of economic indicators for the layperson, but its hard to see how the Obama years were an economic catastrophe, and unfortunately we'll never know what the effect of a larger stimulus might have been (or no stimulus for that matter).