USA Political Thread 2024

[GentlemanJack69]

Happy to be critical of both these examples. Neither of these concepts will work in the long-term.

So you've given someone 25k for a down payment. Now they have to keep making the monthly mortgage payments.

Many of these people would have had trouble qualifying for mortgages in the first place because of their incomes.

Is the government going to top up their incomes as well? Probably not.

Many of them (not all) will default on their mortgages and we're back to square one.

It's another misguided attempt to buy votes

Regarding volume and "gouging"

How do you remove volume from the equation? You can't.

Who decides the price of something?

Not the government.

Prices are decided by the seller and the buyer. It's called supply and demand.

Supply and demand is kind of a golden rule. It's always been that way and it's never going to change.

Governments have tried and have never succeeded.

Harris and the Democrats aren't proposing these things to help people, they're proposing them in an attempt to get elected.

Lastly, the "government" doesn't have any money of its own.

It comes from taxpayers.

Firstly. Thank you for a clear intelligent response.

The question around whether they can afford the new housing payment is directly related to the difference between rental costs and housing costs.. If the cost of rent is similar to the cost of home ownership then the additional down payment would definitely have a positive impact.. If there is a large disparity between these costs then you are correct and it is likely that their new budget could become unsustainable. I'm not familiar enough with rental/home ownership costs in the USA to comment.

I agree that the government shouldn't control the price of something... but I do believe that there should be governmental controls in place to limit the extent of predatory practices in the marketplace. An example would be monopolies. If the grocery stores are indeed price gouging there may be justification for reining them in, in some manner.
I'm not disagreeing that the market shouldn't be manipulated by the government.. but governments both Democrat and Republican commonly do so in an effort to gain votes.

Politicians always propose things in order to get elected. that's not unique to Democrats or Republicans, it's true everywhere. Whether or not they are incidentally trying to help people by legitimately trying to solve issues that matter to people is irrelevant to most people.. it's whether or not any given policy will help any given individual specifically is usually the determining factor. "What' in it for me?" Unfortunately once a special interest has an advantage they are loathe to surrender it.. leading to more and more things that the government is paying for, administrating, bloating government. In a perfect world we could all agree to minimize government to only impact those things that are truly needed for societal stability, but we're human and we all want our piece of the pie and we're not willing to surrender an inch for the greater good.

Thank you. Good discourse. Much appreciated.

 

[Cock Throppled]

Firstly. Thank you for a clear intelligent response.

The question around whether they can afford the new housing payment is directly related to the difference between rental costs and housing costs.. If the cost of rent is similar to the cost of home ownership then the additional down payment would definitely have a positive impact.. If there is a large disparity between these costs then you are correct and it is likely that their new budget could become unsustainable. I'm not familiar enough with rental/home ownership costs in the USA to comment.

I agree that the government shouldn't control the price of something... but I do believe that there should be governmental controls in place to limit the extent of predatory practices in the marketplace. An example would be monopolies. If the grocery stores are indeed price gouging there may be justification for reining them in, in some manner.
I'm not disagreeing that the market shouldn't be manipulated by the government.. but governments both Democrat and Republican commonly do so in an effort to gain votes.

Politicians always propose things in order to get elected. that's not unique to Democrats or Republicans, it's true everywhere. Whether or not they are incidentally trying to help people by legitimately trying to solve issues that matter to people is irrelevant to most people.. it's whether or not any given policy will help any given individual specifically is usually the determining factor. "What' in it for me?" Unfortunately once a special interest has an advantage they are loathe to surrender it.. leading to more and more things that the government is paying for, administrating, bloating government. In a perfect world we could all agree to minimize government to only impact those things that are truly needed for societal stability, but we're human and we all want our piece of the pie and we're not willing to surrender an inch for the greater good.

Thank you. Good discourse. Much appreciated.

The examples you gave of food stores didn't involve "gouging". Making profits because of large volumes comes nowhere near gouging. In fact, it can be said to be the opposite of gouging. And how are food sellers monoploizing? There are more choices of places to buy food all across America, except in places where theft have driven them out of communities.

Selling bottled water for $2.50, or coffee for $6.00 a cup is gouging. Is she about the rein in Starbucks for gouging? Having a monoploy to destroy others in the same field is gouging under a different name. Is Harris going after Walmart, Apple, Ticketmaster or Google? Is she going to set price limits on sports tickets, Netflix subscriptions, vehicles, or clothing? Setting government price controls on food supplies, when there is NO proof of gouging, or a cause of inflation is just government control as I stated - Soviet Era. I'm surprised she didn't set it out as a five-year plan.

Put controls on, and watch which products first disappear, then come back at higher prices. It has happened everywhere, and anywhere it has been put in place. Should a head of lettuce cost ten cents less? 25 cents less? Who decides? On what basis? Maybe they should be free? Why should people have to pay for food at all? Seems to work in North Korea.

I don't even have to argue the point. You said it yourself..." leading to more and more things that the government is paying for, administrating, bloating government."

 

[westwoody]

The housing crisis is a tough one.
As Dr J said, prices will go up if people can get a down payment. The same thing happened with interest rates. Lower rates=higher prices.
People buy based on the payments they can make. Actual cash price seems irrelevant.
Look at car sales. Ads always say “as low as $xxxx biweekly” and the cash price is buried in the fine print.
I tried to buy a car for cash and the sales rep tried to talk me out of it. He admitted they make much more on financing than on the car. Same goes for houses.

I have tried to explain home finance to a co-worker in her 50s. She is obsessed with upgrading. She thinks if she sells their house for twice what she bought it for she has made a big profit.
She never considered mortgage interest, realty/legal/survey fees, moving expenses or remodeling.
If you buy a 500k condo with a mortgage you might pay several times that before it is yours. The only people profiting are the banks.

We have a real crisis with financial literacy.

 

[luvsdaty]

 

[Crookedmember]

Luntz: Trump ‘committing political suicide’ as Harris seizes ‘intensity advantage’

Longtime GOP pollster Frank Luntz said in a Wednesday interview he is seeing a “broad shift” in the 2024 polls toward Vice President Harris as she rides her “intensity advantage” and as former President Trump increasingly commits “political suicide.”


Luntz said Harris’s recent enthusiasm boost has tapped into part of the electorate that might not have otherwise voted in November had President Biden remained the party’s nominee. He predicted that could have a downballot effect, speaking in an interview on CNBC’s “Squawk Box.”


“She’s bringing out people who are not interested in voting for either Trump or Biden. So the entire electoral pool has changed,” Luntz said. “And if it continues in this direction, you have to start to consider Democrats winning the Senate and Democrats winning the House.


“The actual people who are participating — she’s got intensity now. She’s got an intensity advantage. She’s got a demographic advantage. And I haven’t seen anything like this happen in 30 days in my lifetime,” Luntz continued.

...

“The people who are ‘undecided’ have all collapsed towards Harris. The people who are ‘weak Trump’ have all collapsed towards ‘undecided.’ It’s this broad shift,” Luntz said.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...political-suicide-harris-intensity-advantage/

 

[Cock Throppled]

When the very Democrat-friendy Washington Post writes an editorial panning Harris proposals you know she's on the wrong track.

 

[se7landrover97]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...&cvid=91ee368fbbb1485b875743106e9c6625&ei=103

“Crime is down, border crossings are down, the inflation is down,” he said, referring to the price index, which fell below 3 percent for the first time since March 2021.

“I got news for you. You know, problems are not static. They’re addressed and they get better. We’re going to have a Fed rate cut and all probability in mid-September,” Carville continued. “But I think our party, I think the Democratic Party has two really classy candidates and they have two really trashy candidates.”

 

[se7landrover97]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...n&cvid=523d34c129ae43d4bc8f808a840212b5&ei=23

 

[LLLurkJ2]

The housing crisis is a tough one.
As Dr J said, prices will go up if people can get a down payment. The same thing happened with interest rates. Lower rates=higher prices.
People buy based on the payments they can make. Actual cash price seems irrelevant.
Look at car sales. Ads always say “as low as $xxxx biweekly” and the cash price is buried in the fine print.
I tried to buy a car for cash and the sales rep tried to talk me out of it. He admitted they make much more on financing than on the car. Same goes for houses.

I have tried to explain home finance to a co-worker in her 50s. She is obsessed with upgrading. She thinks if she sells their house for twice what she bought it for she has made a big profit.
She never considered mortgage interest, realty/legal/survey fees, moving expenses or remodeling.
If you buy a 500k condo with a mortgage you might pay several times that before it is yours. The only people profiting are the banks.

We have a real crisis with financial literacy.

The thing that i always gind confusing is that housing starts have not increased given the high prices. Could be nimby-ism or restrictions/red tape, but if your recall they were tearing down half builts in California after the 'housing crisis' and tearing up neighbourhoods in Detroit not that long ago- seems like perverse incentives are at play.

 

[MRGREEN]

Greed and ego seems to be the problem more than any thing else. If no one paid 6.00 for a Starbucks coffee, quickly the price would not be 6.00. Consumers can play a huge role in supple and demand. Demand less. No one "needs" multiple homes or vehicles.No one "needs" monster square footage homes. No one "needs" to overrun countries in the name of tourism. No one "needs" to encroach into the wilderness just for an ego stroke. There's plenty of everything for everyone.

We live simply and have more than enough. No employment pension plans but building our own allowed us to work at what we wanted to do and not beholden to a job.. Took effort but well worth it.

 

[GentlemanJack69]

The examples you gave of food stores didn't involve "gouging". Making profits because of large volumes comes nowhere near gouging. In fact, it can be said to be the opposite of gouging. And how are food sellers monoploizing? There are more choices of places to buy food all across America, except in places where theft have driven them out of communities.

Selling bottled water for $2.50, or coffee for $6.00 a cup is gouging. Is she about the rein in Starbucks for gouging? Having a monoploy to destroy others in the same field is gouging under a different name. Is Harris going after Walmart, Apple, Ticketmaster or Google? Is she going to set price limits on sports tickets, Netflix subscriptions, vehicles, or clothing? Setting government price controls on food supplies, when there is NO proof of gouging, or a cause of inflation is just government control as I stated - Soviet Era. I'm surprised she didn't set it out as a five-year plan.

Put controls on, and watch which products first disappear, then come back at higher prices. It has happened everywhere, and anywhere it has been put in place. Should a head of lettuce cost ten cents less? 25 cents less? Who decides? On what basis? Maybe they should be free? Why should people have to pay for food at all? Seems to work in North Korea.

I don't even have to argue the point. You said it yourself..." leading to more and more things that the government is paying for, administrating, bloating government."

Again.. you're not reading my post with a critical view, or perhaps I wasn't being as clear as I intended.. I didn't give any examples of food stores gouging, I noted that the rationale given for the government intervention was based on price gouging. I don't know if US grocery stores are price gouging (and don't care). I also didn't say that they were a monopoly. I said that an example of what I would consider predatory and a reasonable excuse for government controls would be a monopoly. I am not saying that grocery stores are monopolies. My point was that contrary to apple9927's assertion, margins have nothing to do with profitability of grocery stores. Do you disagree with me? To be clear "do you disagree that the profitability of grocery stores is based on volume of sales and not profit margin?" Keep in mind this is not a political assertion.. has nothing to do with Harris or Trump.

I have no vested interest in what Harris' plans may be or what the intent is I simply pointed out the illogic in the post from apple9927.

And.. Yes. I agree that government(s) should not be getting further involved in controlling aspects of society.. Except when merited by abuses such as monopolies (no I'm not saying grocery stores are monopolies.. it's just an example) or other similar egregious predatory practices.

To be fair, I'm not making your point for you.. I'm providing my own unbiased non-political point of view which you seem to agree with despite seemingly arguing. There's no need for everything to be so polarized. We can agree on some things and disagree on others. That's democracy.

 

[GentlemanJack69]

Greed and ego seems to be the problem more than any thing else. If no one paid 6.00 for a Starbucks coffee, quickly the price would not be 6.00. Consumers can play a huge role in supple and demand. Demand less. No one "needs" multiple homes or vehicles.No one "needs" monster square footage homes. No one "needs" to overrun countries in the name of tourism. No one "needs" to encroach into the wilderness just for an ego stroke. There's plenty of everything for everyone.

We live simply and have more than enough. No employment pension plans but building our own allowed us to work at what we wanted to do and not beholden to a job.. Took effort but well worth it.

Good point. It is a sad fact that both USA and Canadian economies are driven by consumerism, without the constantly flowing economics of cash flow, where taxation takes a smile bite every time money and goods change hands, our governments wouldn't have the necessary tax income to pay for all the programs and services that are necessary (some are unnecessary) for our current societal standards. In one word, you are correct Greed. everyone wants their piece of the pie, and once they have it, they want a bigger piece.

 

[se7landrover97]

More jobs and higher wages, means more income. More income means a rise in consumer spending. This translate to more demand of goods and services. If the common denominator for inflation is supply and demand, so more demand less supply equals higher prices. If this happens it leads to increase in inflation? Why then do we blame the leadership for creating more jobs and increasing wages? Should the govt concentrate more on increasing the supply? Isn't that what VP Harris is saying she will do with the housing crisis?

 

[GentlemanJack69]

The housing crisis is a tough one.
As Dr J said, prices will go up if people can get a down payment. The same thing happened with interest rates. Lower rates=higher prices.
People buy based on the payments they can make. Actual cash price seems irrelevant.
Look at car sales. Ads always say “as low as $xxxx biweekly” and the cash price is buried in the fine print.
I tried to buy a car for cash and the sales rep tried to talk me out of it. He admitted they make much more on financing than on the car. Same goes for houses.

I have tried to explain home finance to a co-worker in her 50s. She is obsessed with upgrading. She thinks if she sells their house for twice what she bought it for she has made a big profit.
She never considered mortgage interest, realty/legal/survey fees, moving expenses or remodeling.
If you buy a 500k condo with a mortgage you might pay several times that before it is yours. The only people profiting are the banks.

We have a real crisis with financial literacy.

Home ownership is definitely a complex equation and not for everyone. There are many factors that weigh in. If you are purchasing a home as a residence, the variables are different than if you are purchasing as an investment.
For a residence you have to factor in what you would be paying for rent, as opposed to what you pay for your mortgage, property taxes, strata (if applicable), general upkeep, and associated legal fees and general expenses - minus - the value of the equity that you build up in the asset and the increased value based on property appreciation of values that is the home and the land. When I first purchased my home, the cost of home ownership was greater than renting by a small but significant margin - roughly $500 per month. Theoretically I could have taken the difference and invested it... I didn't, I bought my home. Now my costs for home ownership are under 1k per month. If I wanted to rent my home I would be paying almost 3k per month. I am in effect literally saving 2k per month by owning instead of renting.. and have built up roughly $700,000 of equity in my home - far outstripping any rate of return I could have earned by investing the $500 per month - which went down year over year until I was spending less on home ownership than I would have on renting. There is no guarantee that rental costs wouldn't go down, inverting this analysis, or that house prices will continue going up, reducing the value of home ownership... but for me, it was definitely worth it.
To your point, purchasing as an investment is very different. Any equity gains you make are eroded every time you flip properties.. the legal costs and moving expenses etc seriously eat into any equity gains you may have made. That is why most property investment strategies are predicated on leveraging not selling and repurchasing, fewer factors to dilute the effective return.
I agree that there is a serious crisis with financial literacy. the greatest skill that you can teach someone is how to budget and critically assess, not how much you're saving or getting with your money, but how much you're paying based on your cash flow.

 

[westwoody]

The thing that i always gind confusing is that housing starts have not increased given the high prices. Could be nimby-ism or restrictions/red tape, but if your recall they were tearing down half builts in California after the 'housing crisis' and tearing up neighbourhoods in Detroit not that long ago- seems like perverse incentives are at play.

Half built houses often need to be torn down because the inner parts are exposed to the weather if the outside cladding isn't up. If not finished right away they deteriorate very fast.
Houses that are uninhabited also deteriorate very fast, and can be declared uninhabitable by inspectors.
Older houses can be so hard to bring up to code with HVAC, electrical, plumbing, it's cheaper to tear down and start anew.
I've known projects where a dispute suddenly arises, home buyer won't pay progress payment or financing falls through, or often man/woman divorce. Homebuilding and renos are one of the biggest causes of divorce, seriously.
A few years ago houses stalled because lumber and wire prices suddenly went way up. Builder could not finish at agreed price because they would lose money, house ends up derelict and torn down.
A friend built a big house in a ritzy area and lost almost 50k because financing kept failing. As the builder he was carrying all the costs until it sold. He paid interest for a year on a lot of money. Sold it for a million plus and lost money, weird eh?

The other thing is the builders I know all want to build giant McMansions. There is more money there than in "affordable" houses.
Generally bigger sell faster and often for cash. Financing issues on small homes can cost a lot of money for the builder.

 

[GentlemanJack69]

More jobs and higher wages, means more income. More income means a rise in consumer spending. This translate to more demand of goods and services. If the common denominator for inflation is supply and demand, so more demand less supply equals higher prices. If this happens it leads to increase in inflation? Why then do we blame the leadership for creating more jobs and increasing wages? Should the govt concentrate more on increasing the supply? Isn't that what VP Harris is saying she will do with the housing crisis?

I don't know what VP Harris is saying she will do.. but Yes ignoring any other factors that could impact the situation, increasing supply should have a positive effect of reducing demand, therefore lowering cost.

 

[luvsdaty]

 

[Drjohn]

So.... While you can't seem to help yourself from "pointing out the ridiculous clownish nature" of the anti trump crowd, you also seem ever willing to defend Trump and oppose anyone who thinks of him as a clown or douchebag, despite admitting this is how you also feel about him.
Thanks for clearing that up. 🙄

You have missed the point entirely.

I suggest that you look into the concepts of context and nuance.

Good luck.

 

[Crookedmember]

Trump melts down over Kamala Harris being on the cover of TIME Magazine: “I’m much better looking than her. I’m a better looking person”

 

[se7landrover97]

Trump melts down over Kamala Harris being on the cover of TIME Magazine: “I’m much better looking than her. I’m a better looking person”


View attachment 100998
[/QUOTE
What a stupid thing for him to say. If this isn't a clear example that he only thinks of himself, I don't know what is anymore. There are so many things for him to say in that rally but dumb as he is, he decided to talk about his looks. He just can't take it that a black South Asian woman who will beat him in November, is in the cover of some magazines. If he still somehow gets elected back to the WH, good luck America.