The 2024 Elections in the US, mostly Harris vs. Trump

[Votanic]

(Who'd have guessed that Muslims aren't cool with transsexual she-men hanging out in girls locker rooms? The wheels of the Democrats' intersectional bus are finally coming off.)

Well actually, some of the ones in Algeria are, ...if they bring home the Olympic Gold.

[Dukasaur]

Oh, I forgot their New One: Trump is Bad, fascist, Nazi, etc. etc.,

To me, that would be enough. Someone as crooked as Trump should not be elected Official Dogcatcher in Buttfuck, Idaho. I would vote for a random wino running against Trump.

But for many people it's not enough. And yeah, Kamala has squandered a winnable campaign by only talking about what she's against, and not painting any kind of vision of what she's for.

[pmac666]

Oh, I forgot their New One: Trump is Bad, fascist, Nazi, etc. etc.,

To me, that would be enough. Someone as crooked as Trump should not be elected Official Dogcatcher in Buttfuck, Idaho. I would vote for a random wino running against Trump.

But for many people it's not enough. And yeah, Kamala has squandered a winnable campaign by only talking about what she's against, and not painting any kind of vision of what she's for.

What are you talking about?

raising child tax credit
first time home buyers tax credit, 50k
tax deduction for first buisness owners from 5k to 25k
building 3 million houses
taxbreaks for the middle class, raising them for ppl with over 400k
implementing the border bill
codifying roe
2 state solution
standing with nato

And i didnt even need google for that.......
And shes winning, no worries, it wont be close.

Btw can someone tell me about Trumps policies? Apart from his glorious tariffs?

[Votanic]

But for many people it's not enough. And yeah, Kamala has squandered a winnable campaign by only talking about what she's against, and not painting any kind of vision of what she's for.

What the helll do you mean? She says what an empty figurehead whose not for anything (good) would say. ...and who doesn't want the public to figure out the [/b]real[b] agenda of her overlord cabal.
But then you know that. You're becoming quite adept at politically correct doublespeak, Duk.
We should start calling you Pukasaur, ...then you could be the third pee in the pod.

[Pack Rat]

Take it easy on Duk....he's a Canadian moderator, playing both sides to appear as middle of the road. Which means nonsense in a war for democracy and facts.

Trump is delusional and not fit to run for any office. He is running for President to stay out of jail.

There is nothing we can do to change the minds of Trump's mindless followers. You can't reason with people who laugh with Trump who thought It was funny the Pelosi's elderly husband was beaten with a hammer. Yet, thought it was God who protected Trump from a piece of shrapnel that scratched his ear.

[Votanic]

Take it easy on Duk....he's a Canadian moderator, playing both sides to appear as middle of the road. Which means nonsense in a war for democracy and facts.

Trump is delusional and not fit to run for any office. He is running for President to stay out of jail.

There is nothing we can do to change the minds of Trump's mindless followers. You can't reason with people who laugh with Trump who thought It was funny the Pelosi's elderly husband was beaten with a hammer. Yet, thought it was God who protected Trump from a piece of shrapnel that scratched his ear.

Ass-kissing up another sandwich, miss piss-mouse?
...and you're a bloody hypocrite to boot.

[Pack Rat]

Take it easy on Duk....he's a Canadian moderator, playing both sides to appear as middle of the road. Which means nonsense in a war for democracy and facts.

Trump is delusional and not fit to run for any office. He is running for President to stay out of jail.

There is nothing we can do to change the minds of Trump's mindless followers. You can't reason with people who laugh with Trump who thought It was funny the Pelosi's elderly husband was beaten with a hammer. Yet, thought it was God who protected Trump from a piece of shrapnel that scratched his ear.

Ass-kissing up another sandwich, miss piss-mouse?
...and you're a bloody hypocrite to boot.

C'mon Votanic! They way you follow Saxi around this forum...we can only assume you're either hero worshipping or would Brokeback Mountain ring a bell for you?

[Votanic]

Take it easy on Duk....he's a Canadian moderator, playing both sides to appear as middle of the road. Which means nonsense in a war for democracy and facts.

Trump is delusional and not fit to run for any office. He is running for President to stay out of jail.

There is nothing we can do to change the minds of Trump's mindless followers. You can't reason with people who laugh with Trump who thought It was funny the Pelosi's elderly husband was beaten with a hammer. Yet, thought it was God who protected Trump from a piece of shrapnel that scratched his ear.

Ass-kissing up another sandwich, miss piss-mouse?
...and you're a bloody hypocrite to boot.

C'mon Votanic! They way you follow Saxi around this forum...we can only assume you're either hero worshipping or would Brokeback Mountain ring a bell for you?

You need to read with more comprehension, pee-pee. While saxi and I agree on some issues, I also frequently correct him for his errors and misguided viewpoints.
If any two posters around here lack individuality, it's you and the other pee. You're both almost like Siamese twins sharing the same small brain.
...or maybe two political troll-bots produced by the same programmer.

[Pack Rat]

Cool story bro. I can only assume you are embarrassed to be found out.

[pmac666]

Trumps MSG rally already sounds like the last america first rally in there.
And cheeto isnt even on stage yet.

"Theres literally a floating island of garbage in the middle of the ocean right now. I think its Puerto Rico."

"Kamala has pimp handlers."

"We need to slaughter those ppl."

"Shes the devil, shes the antichrist."

"America is for americans and for americans only."

[saxitoxin]

Signs of the times ...

Every four years, the California Secretary of State holds a mock election for high school students throughout California.

Here are the results from 2020:

Joe Biden (Democratic Party): 68%
Donald Trump (Republican Party): 18%
Gloria La Riva (Peace & Freedom Party): 6%
Rocky De La Fuente (American Independent Party): 4%
Howie Hawkins (Green Party): 3%
Jo Jorgensen (Libertarian Party): 2%

Here are the results from 2024, just announced today:

Kamala Harris (Democratic Party): 49% (-19%)
Donald Trump (Republican Party): 35% (+17%)
Claudia De La Cruz (Peace & Freedom Party): 7% (+1%)
Robert F. Kennedy (American Independent Party): 6% (+2%)
Jill Stein (Green Party): 2% (-1%)
Chase Oliver (Libertarian Party): 1% (-1%)

[Dukasaur]

Oh, I forgot their New One: Trump is Bad, fascist, Nazi, etc. etc.,

To me, that would be enough. Someone as crooked as Trump should not be elected Official Dogcatcher in Buttfuck, Idaho. I would vote for a random wino running against Trump.

But for many people it's not enough. And yeah, Kamala has squandered a winnable campaign by only talking about what she's against, and not painting any kind of vision of what she's for.

What are you talking about?

raising child tax credit
first time home buyers tax credit, 50k
tax deduction for first buisness owners from 5k to 25k
building 3 million houses
taxbreaks for the middle class, raising them for ppl with over 400k
implementing the border bill
codifying roe
2 state solution
standing with nato

The economic ones are just a grab-bag of random handouts. I could ask, "where does the money come from?" but that's not exactly my point. My point is that there's no unifying vision.

When you promise handouts, most people realize that it's just political opportunism, unless you tie it to a grand unifying vision. If you don't paint the picture of a world you're trying to build, most people realize they're just being bribed with their own money and they don't really fall for it.

Take it easy on Duk....he's a Canadian moderator, playing both sides to appear as middle of the road.

I'm not playing or pretending. I'm legitimately middle-of-the-road.

If you think that just because one side is evil, that means the other side is necessarily good, you're delusional.

Politics is not a game played between nice people. It's a game played between different flavours of evil, and our job is to discern which flavour will leave us least nauseated.

[HitRed]

September 13, 22 Home

I quake at the sight; my mighty nation has fallen into ruin. The collapse of this nation* under the current administration has caused the weakening of the world and the onslaught of evil into the world. I beg my children to pray for the upcoming elections. Pray for the right people to be put into office by the people of this nation, not those who seek power and control for evil’s ways. Go therefore and know who you put in office, vote for this country and its people not for some hidden agenda. Seek my ways and not man’s ways says the Lord God.

Go.

* U.S.A.

[saxitoxin]

codifying roe

Since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1978, Democrats have had a governing trifecta for 10 years (1977-1980, 1993-1994, 2009-2010, 2021-2022). In none of those 10 years did they ever bother to introduce legislation to codify it, let alone actually do so. They don't want to codify it. It gives them a hypothetical danger on which to run.

So when Kamala says she'll codify it, why would anyone with a modicum of critical thinking believe that? Maybe if it were an inspiring, transcendent, generational candidate you'd give them a pass. But a cast-from-the-mold, machine party, centrist apparatchik like Kamala? Naw.

[saxitoxin]

Remember, in 2020, Biden promised the Biden-Harris Administration would cure cancer if we elected them.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/201 ... th-vpx.cnn

So that's the bar Kamala has set --- a 5% reduction in the marginal tax rate isn't gonna cut it. She has to promise something bigger than curing cancer. (And, to make it believable, she'll still need to cure cancer by next week.)

[Dukasaur]

To be fair, some of the advances in cancer therapies of the last few years are pretty amazing.

Just one small example:
https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20240821/fda-approves-new-treatment-for-non-small-cell-lung-cancer

[pmac666]

Oh, I forgot their New One: Trump is Bad, fascist, Nazi, etc. etc.,

To me, that would be enough. Someone as crooked as Trump should not be elected Official Dogcatcher in Buttfuck, Idaho. I would vote for a random wino running against Trump.

But for many people it's not enough. And yeah, Kamala has squandered a winnable campaign by only talking about what she's against, and not painting any kind of vision of what she's for.

What are you talking about?

raising child tax credit
first time home buyers tax credit, 50k
tax deduction for first buisness owners from 5k to 25k
building 3 million houses
taxbreaks for the middle class, raising them for ppl with over 400k
implementing the border bill
codifying roe
2 state solution
standing with nato

The economic ones are just a grab-bag of random handouts. I could ask, "where does the money come from?" but that's not exactly my point. My point is that there's no unifying vision.

When you promise handouts, most people realize that it's just political opportunism, unless you tie it to a grand unifying vision. If you don't paint the picture of a world you're trying to build, most people realize they're just being bribed with their own money and they don't really fall for it.

Take it easy on Duk....he's a Canadian moderator, playing both sides to appear as middle of the road.

I'm not playing or pretending. I'm legitimately middle-of-the-road.

If you think that just because one side is evil, that means the other side is necessarily good, you're delusional.

Politics is not a game played between nice people. It's a game played between different flavours of evil, and our job is to discern which flavour will leave us least nauseated.

Well, doesnt she with her wanting to tax the rich? The economists, left and right, are quite clear what the better program is.
Im seriously not sure what you want to hear?
And whats more unifying than rallying with Liz and wanting a rep in her gvmt? Trump is the big unifier apart from that. lol
Thats more than anyone else has done in ages.
I dont get it...

[saxitoxin]

To be fair, some of the advances in cancer therapies of the last few years are pretty amazing.

Just one small example:
https://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20240821/fda-approves-new-treatment-for-non-small-cell-lung-cancer

That does seem significant. I read the list of contributor affiliations of that patent, though:

From the Division of Medical Oncology, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University College of Medicine (B.C.C.), Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine (S.-H.L.), and the Lung Cancer Center, Asan Medical Center Cancer Institute (S.-W.K.), Seoul, the Department of Hematology–Oncology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam (J.-S.L.), and the Medical Department, Chungbuk National University Hospital, Cheongju (K.-H.L.) — all in South Korea; the Department of Medical Oncology, Shanghai Chest Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai (S.L.), Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital, Harbin (B.L.), the Department of Medical Oncology, Huizhou Municipal Central Hospital of Guangdong Province, Huizhou (H.X.), and Jilin Cancer Hospital, Changchun (Y.C.) — all in China; the Medical Oncology Service, Vall d’Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus–Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona (E. Felip), and the Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Regional Universitario de Málaga y Virgen de la Victoria, Institute of Biomedical Research of Malaga, Malaga (V.G.C.) — both in Spain; Virginia Cancer Specialists, Fairfax (A.I.S.); Institut Curie, Institut du Thorax Curie-Montsouris, Paris (N.G.), and Paris-Saclay University, Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Versailles (N.G.), and Paris-Saclay University and Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif (B.B.) — all in France; the National Cancer Institute, Kyiv, Ukraine (Y.O.); the Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital Faculty of Medicine, Mahidol University Bangkok Noi Campus, Bangkok, Thailand (P.D.); the Clinical Oncology Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur (A.A.), and the Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Respiratory Medicine, International Islamic University Malaysia Medical Specialist Center, Pahang (S.-H.H.)

Is Biden-Harris facilitating cancer research in South Korea, Thailand, China, and Malaysia? Or did this occur independently of anything Biden-Harris did?

Biden-Harris promised a cure for cancer. It's October 27, 2024 and we don't have one. Biden-Harris have eight days to cure cancer.

[saxitoxin]

And whats more unifying than rallying with Liz and wanting a rep in her gvmt?

Because no one -- Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian, or indepenent -- wants Liz Cheney to be the fucking janitor at the Social Security office in Dubuque, let alone Secretary of Whatever.

Picking the most despised family in America and pledging you'll put their hands on the steering wheel is a softball to Trump and may be part of the reason he's getting more of the Arab vote than Kamala.

“Kamala is campaigning with Muslim-hating warmonger, Liz Cheney, who wants to invade practically every Muslim country on the planet. And let me tell you the Muslims of our country, they see it, and they know it,” Trump said at a rally in Novi, Mich. “Her father was responsible for invading the Middle East, killing millions of Arabs – millions – and this is the one that Kamala is campaigning with,” he continued, referring to former Vice President Dick Cheney.

https://thehill.com/homenews/4955368-tr ... warmonger/

This is like having Jack the Ripper speak at an event for sex workers. Dry humping Liz is unifying alright. Unifying people against Kamala.

[saxitoxin]

HOT



And this was the overflow crowd that had to stand outside because there was no more capacity!



If Trump is reelected, Job #1 needs to be to build a giant parade grounds capped by a huge stone eagle somewhere south of D.C.

[Dukasaur]

The economists, left and right, are quite clear what the better program is.

Much has been made of the fact that economists generally agree that Trump would be worse for the economy than Harris.

But again, when your only selling point is "Trump is worse" that's not a resounding rallying cry.

Factcheck.org has looked at this is some detail. Let's have a look at their summary, available here: https://www.factcheck.org/2024/09/harris-misleadingly-cites-some-economic-analyses-of-her-policies-and-trumps/

Harris again cited the Nobel laureates, Goldman Sachs and Moody’s in an interview that aired Sept. 25 on MSNBC, saying they found that “my plan would grow the economy, his would shrink the economy,” and the same day in a speech in Pittsburgh, she referred to “a survey of top economists by the Financial Times and the University of Chicago,” saying it “found that, by an overwhelming 70 to 3% margin, my plan would be better for keeping inflation low.”

Harris was mostly correct in her description of Moody’s Analytics, the Financial Times survey and the 16 Nobel laureates, except the latter commented on President Joe Biden’s economic policies, not Harris’ proposals since she became the Democratic presidential nominee. But she is wrong about the Wharton analysis and exaggerates what Goldman Sachs said.

"Mostly correct". That's what their comments boil down to, and I would agree. She's mostly right in saying that economists agree she would be better for the economy than Trump, or at least not as bad.

About Penn-Wharton:

PWBM found that Harris’ plan would reduce the nation’s gross domestic product more than Trump’s, and would reduce workers’ wages more.

PWBM did conclude that Trump’s plan would add about twice as much to the nation’s debt, but PWBM warned that the debt added by both candidates’ plans would fall on “future generations who must finance almost the entirety of the tax decreases” each has proposed.

PWBM determined that under Harris’ tax and spending plan, “Relative to current law, GDP falls by 1.3 percent by 2034 and by 4 percent within 30 years (year 2054). Capital investment and working hours fall, thereby reducing wages by 0.8 percent in 2034 and by 3.3 percent in 2054.”

It also found that Harris’ plans would increase cumulative deficits by $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years on a conventional basis and by $2 trillion on a dynamic basis. (Dynamic forecasts take into account the policies’ expected effects on economic activity.)

More generally, PWBM concluded: “Lower and middle-income households generally benefit from increased transfers and credits on a conventional basis, while higher-income households are worse off.”

A mixed bag there. The poor can take a bit of comfort if Harris wins. The rich and middle class will not be thrilled.

About the Goldman-Sachs analysis:

“We estimate that if Trump wins in a sweep or with divided government, the hit to growth from tariffs and tighter immigration policy would outweigh the positive fiscal impulse, resulting in a peak hit to GDP growth of -0.5pp in 2025H2 that abates in 2026,” the report said.

In short, real GDP would continue to grow, but at 0.5 percentage point less than it otherwise would in the second half of 2025.

As for a Harris victory, the analysts at Goldman Sachs said: “If Democrats sweep, new spending and expanded middle-income tax credits would slightly more than offset lower investment due to higher corporate tax rates, resulting in a very slight boost to GDP growth on average over 2025-2026. If Harris wins with divided government, the effects of policy changes would be small and neutral on net.”

In the CNBC interview, Solomon was asked about Harris’ use of his company’s report during the debate. Harris said, “What Goldman Sachs has said is that Donald Trump’s plan would make the economy worse. Mine would strengthen the economy.”

“I think a lot more has been made of this than should be,” Solomon said. “What the report did is it looked at a handful of policy issues that have been put out by both sides, and it tried to model their impact on GDP growth. The reason I say a bigger deal has been made of it is what it showed is the difference between the sets of policies that they put forward was about two-tenths of 1%, OK? So [the] economy grows, OK, if you took these particular sets of policies they looked at.”

Pretty much on the fence, leaning slightly toward Harris.

The Moody's analysis was strongly pro-Harris, but still not without caveats:

“Assuming Harris and Trump are able to fully implement the policies they have proposed when they take office, the economy will perform better under Harris than under Trump in their terms,” Zandi told Newsweek in a Sept. 20 article. “That is, real economic growth will be stronger, inflation and interest rates lower and budget deficits and debt lower under Harris’ policies than under Trump’s policies,” he said.

However, a Moody’s Analytics report published in early August said that it’s most likely if Harris wins the election, she will have to deal with a divided Congress – making it difficult to execute her full agenda, which Moody’s assumed would be similar to what was in the Biden-Harris administration’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2025. But that scenario would still work out better for the economy than if Trump becomes president with a Republican-controlled Congress, the second likeliest outcome, the analysis said.

Even with a split Congress, Moody’s economists projected that Harris’ proposals would lead to average annual economic growth of 2.1% from 2024 to 2028. The economy would still grow under Trump and a Republican-controlled Congress – contrary to Harris’ suggestion in the MSNBC interview that the economy would “shrink” – but the increase would occur at a slower average rate of 1.3% annually.

Moody’s also said that “under the Republican sweep scenario,” consumer price inflation increases from 3% in 2024 to 3.5% in 2025, “fueled by the higher tariffs, outflow of foreign immigrants, the resulting tighter labor market and more quickly rising labor costs, and tax-cut-fueled fiscal stimulus.” Real incomes and consumer and business sentiment would be weighed down by the higher inflation and interest rates, starting a recession by the middle of 2025, the analysis said, as Harris indicated in her remarks about Trump’s plans.

The Financial Times survey of economists, gives strong support to Harris, on two very specific questions, deficits and inflation:

In Pittsburgh, Harris correctly cited a survey by the Financial Times and the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. “A survey of top economists by the Financial Times and the University of Chicago found that, by an overwhelming 70 to 3% margin, my plan would be better for keeping inflation low,” she said.

The survey, which the Financial Times wrote about on Sept. 14, asked 37 economists: “If the Harris or Trump economic platforms were to be enacted, which do you think would be more inflationary in the medium term?” In response, 70% said Trump’s plans would be more inflationary; 27% said that there would be “no material difference in their inflationary consequences,” and 3% said Harris’ plans would be more inflationary.

There was a similar response to the question about federal deficits: 70% said Trump’s plans would lead to larger deficits; 19% said there would be “no material difference,” and 11% said Harris’ plans would “produce larger federal budget deficits in the medium term.”

The "Nobel Laureates" letter is also addressed by Factcheck, but that article is a month old and there's a new version of the letter, signed by more Laureates, so I'll skip Factcheck's analysis and go to that.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/23-nobel-prize-winners-push-174809952.html

The signatories—who make up more than half of the prestigious prize’s living recipients in the U.S.—said they support Harris’s candidacy because she “would be a far better steward of our economy than Donald Trump.”

“While each of us has different views on the particulars of various economic policies, we believe that, overall, Harris’s economic agenda will improve our nation’s health, investment, sustainability, resilience, employment opportunities, and fairness and be vastly superior to the counterproductive economic agenda of Donald Trump,” they wrote, in the letter obtained first by CNN.

Of course, neither candidate has fully laid out an economic program yet. Still, the economists insisted they have a “clear picture” of what could be to come thanks to the two politicians’ previous actions, policies, and practices.

“Simply put, Harris’s policies will result in a stronger economic performance, with economic growth that is more robust, more sustainable, and more equitable,” they concluded.

Trump’s weaknesses and Harris’ strengths
Signatories take issue with Trump’s proposal of high tariffs and “regressive tax cuts for corporations and individuals,” explaining that these moves will result in “higher prices, larger deficits, and greater inequality.”

Trump once deemed himself “a Tariff Man” on Twitter—a name that could backfire. His proposed tariffs could increase costs for American households by $2,500 to $3,000 every year, Adam Hersh, a senior economist at nonpartisan advocacy group EPI Action, told NBC.

Then there’s chaos—or even the threat of chaos, which also impacts the larger economy. And Trump’s administration could represent such havoc. “Among the most important determinants of economic success are the rule of law and economic and political certainty, and Trump threatens all of these,” the world-leading economists cautioned in the petition.

That one's unequivocally pro-Harris, and being signed by 23 Nobel-winning economists is pretty impressive. Still, it illustrates what I said. The main element there is not that Harris is selling something magnificent, but that what Trump is selling is just so damned awful.

My personal feeling is that Trump is even worse than they assume. They are academics, after all, and tend to be reserved. I think the triple-whammy of higher deficits, mass deportations, and extreme tariffs, could be enough to knock down the American economy and lead to a long depression of 1930's magnitude. If he wins, and if he is actually able to carry out all his threats.

So it's not that I disagree that Kamala is the better choice, and by a long shot. My point was just that she's done a piss-poor job of selling it.

Well, doesnt she with her wanting to tax the rich?

Does she? Maybe, maybe not. She's hinted at higher taxes for the rich, but been pretty cagey about not getting pinned down on it.

The right has been trying to paint her as an extreme leftist. She obviously isn't, but she's so scared of the term that she's been ultra careful about soft-selling anything that might hint at extreme leftism.

Here's where you would have been better off with someone like Bernie Sanders. Someone who basically says, "yeah, I'm a socialist. The rich have been giving you the gears for forty years, it's time to take some ground back." Someone like Sanders who's not afraid to get in-your-face might be rejected by the electorate, or he might not. I would have at least given it a chance. There's plenty of evidence that the last 40 years have been a disaster for the working class in America. The rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer faster than at any time in the past. When a radical politician has the courage of his convictions and comes out swinging, he'll often surprise you.

Kamala's timid equivocating, trying to move the needle a little to the left but not too much, has only left people mostly uninspired.

There's still a chance that she'll make it, but I think she's now the underdog. A month ago she looked like she was winning.

[jusplay4fun]

[pmac666]

The economists, left and right, are quite clear what the better program is.

Much has been made of the fact that economists generally agree that Trump would be worse for the economy than Harris.

But again, when your only selling point is "Trump is worse" that's not a resounding rallying cry.

Factcheck.org has looked at this is some detail. Let's have a look at their summary, available here: https://www.factcheck.org/2024/09/harris-misleadingly-cites-some-economic-analyses-of-her-policies-and-trumps/

Harris again cited the Nobel laureates, Goldman Sachs and Moody’s in an interview that aired Sept. 25 on MSNBC, saying they found that “my plan would grow the economy, his would shrink the economy,” and the same day in a speech in Pittsburgh, she referred to “a survey of top economists by the Financial Times and the University of Chicago,” saying it “found that, by an overwhelming 70 to 3% margin, my plan would be better for keeping inflation low.”

Harris was mostly correct in her description of Moody’s Analytics, the Financial Times survey and the 16 Nobel laureates, except the latter commented on President Joe Biden’s economic policies, not Harris’ proposals since she became the Democratic presidential nominee. But she is wrong about the Wharton analysis and exaggerates what Goldman Sachs said.

"Mostly correct". That's what their comments boil down to, and I would agree. She's mostly right in saying that economists agree she would be better for the economy than Trump, or at least not as bad.

About Penn-Wharton:

PWBM found that Harris’ plan would reduce the nation’s gross domestic product more than Trump’s, and would reduce workers’ wages more.

PWBM did conclude that Trump’s plan would add about twice as much to the nation’s debt, but PWBM warned that the debt added by both candidates’ plans would fall on “future generations who must finance almost the entirety of the tax decreases” each has proposed.

PWBM determined that under Harris’ tax and spending plan, “Relative to current law, GDP falls by 1.3 percent by 2034 and by 4 percent within 30 years (year 2054). Capital investment and working hours fall, thereby reducing wages by 0.8 percent in 2034 and by 3.3 percent in 2054.”

It also found that Harris’ plans would increase cumulative deficits by $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years on a conventional basis and by $2 trillion on a dynamic basis. (Dynamic forecasts take into account the policies’ expected effects on economic activity.)

More generally, PWBM concluded: “Lower and middle-income households generally benefit from increased transfers and credits on a conventional basis, while higher-income households are worse off.”

A mixed bag there. The poor can take a bit of comfort if Harris wins. The rich and middle class will not be thrilled.

About the Goldman-Sachs analysis:

“We estimate that if Trump wins in a sweep or with divided government, the hit to growth from tariffs and tighter immigration policy would outweigh the positive fiscal impulse, resulting in a peak hit to GDP growth of -0.5pp in 2025H2 that abates in 2026,” the report said.

In short, real GDP would continue to grow, but at 0.5 percentage point less than it otherwise would in the second half of 2025.

As for a Harris victory, the analysts at Goldman Sachs said: “If Democrats sweep, new spending and expanded middle-income tax credits would slightly more than offset lower investment due to higher corporate tax rates, resulting in a very slight boost to GDP growth on average over 2025-2026. If Harris wins with divided government, the effects of policy changes would be small and neutral on net.”

In the CNBC interview, Solomon was asked about Harris’ use of his company’s report during the debate. Harris said, “What Goldman Sachs has said is that Donald Trump’s plan would make the economy worse. Mine would strengthen the economy.”

“I think a lot more has been made of this than should be,” Solomon said. “What the report did is it looked at a handful of policy issues that have been put out by both sides, and it tried to model their impact on GDP growth. The reason I say a bigger deal has been made of it is what it showed is the difference between the sets of policies that they put forward was about two-tenths of 1%, OK? So [the] economy grows, OK, if you took these particular sets of policies they looked at.”

Pretty much on the fence, leaning slightly toward Harris.

The Moody's analysis was strongly pro-Harris, but still not without caveats:

“Assuming Harris and Trump are able to fully implement the policies they have proposed when they take office, the economy will perform better under Harris than under Trump in their terms,” Zandi told Newsweek in a Sept. 20 article. “That is, real economic growth will be stronger, inflation and interest rates lower and budget deficits and debt lower under Harris’ policies than under Trump’s policies,” he said.

However, a Moody’s Analytics report published in early August said that it’s most likely if Harris wins the election, she will have to deal with a divided Congress – making it difficult to execute her full agenda, which Moody’s assumed would be similar to what was in the Biden-Harris administration’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2025. But that scenario would still work out better for the economy than if Trump becomes president with a Republican-controlled Congress, the second likeliest outcome, the analysis said.

Even with a split Congress, Moody’s economists projected that Harris’ proposals would lead to average annual economic growth of 2.1% from 2024 to 2028. The economy would still grow under Trump and a Republican-controlled Congress – contrary to Harris’ suggestion in the MSNBC interview that the economy would “shrink” – but the increase would occur at a slower average rate of 1.3% annually.

Moody’s also said that “under the Republican sweep scenario,” consumer price inflation increases from 3% in 2024 to 3.5% in 2025, “fueled by the higher tariffs, outflow of foreign immigrants, the resulting tighter labor market and more quickly rising labor costs, and tax-cut-fueled fiscal stimulus.” Real incomes and consumer and business sentiment would be weighed down by the higher inflation and interest rates, starting a recession by the middle of 2025, the analysis said, as Harris indicated in her remarks about Trump’s plans.

The Financial Times survey of economists, gives strong support to Harris, on two very specific questions, deficits and inflation:

In Pittsburgh, Harris correctly cited a survey by the Financial Times and the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. “A survey of top economists by the Financial Times and the University of Chicago found that, by an overwhelming 70 to 3% margin, my plan would be better for keeping inflation low,” she said.

The survey, which the Financial Times wrote about on Sept. 14, asked 37 economists: “If the Harris or Trump economic platforms were to be enacted, which do you think would be more inflationary in the medium term?” In response, 70% said Trump’s plans would be more inflationary; 27% said that there would be “no material difference in their inflationary consequences,” and 3% said Harris’ plans would be more inflationary.

There was a similar response to the question about federal deficits: 70% said Trump’s plans would lead to larger deficits; 19% said there would be “no material difference,” and 11% said Harris’ plans would “produce larger federal budget deficits in the medium term.”

The "Nobel Laureates" letter is also addressed by Factcheck, but that article is a month old and there's a new version of the letter, signed by more Laureates, so I'll skip Factcheck's analysis and go to that.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/23-nobel-prize-winners-push-174809952.html

The signatories—who make up more than half of the prestigious prize’s living recipients in the U.S.—said they support Harris’s candidacy because she “would be a far better steward of our economy than Donald Trump.”

“While each of us has different views on the particulars of various economic policies, we believe that, overall, Harris’s economic agenda will improve our nation’s health, investment, sustainability, resilience, employment opportunities, and fairness and be vastly superior to the counterproductive economic agenda of Donald Trump,” they wrote, in the letter obtained first by CNN.

Of course, neither candidate has fully laid out an economic program yet. Still, the economists insisted they have a “clear picture” of what could be to come thanks to the two politicians’ previous actions, policies, and practices.

“Simply put, Harris’s policies will result in a stronger economic performance, with economic growth that is more robust, more sustainable, and more equitable,” they concluded.

Trump’s weaknesses and Harris’ strengths
Signatories take issue with Trump’s proposal of high tariffs and “regressive tax cuts for corporations and individuals,” explaining that these moves will result in “higher prices, larger deficits, and greater inequality.”

Trump once deemed himself “a Tariff Man” on Twitter—a name that could backfire. His proposed tariffs could increase costs for American households by $2,500 to $3,000 every year, Adam Hersh, a senior economist at nonpartisan advocacy group EPI Action, told NBC.

Then there’s chaos—or even the threat of chaos, which also impacts the larger economy. And Trump’s administration could represent such havoc. “Among the most important determinants of economic success are the rule of law and economic and political certainty, and Trump threatens all of these,” the world-leading economists cautioned in the petition.

That one's unequivocally pro-Harris, and being signed by 23 Nobel-winning economists is pretty impressive. Still, it illustrates what I said. The main element there is not that Harris is selling something magnificent, but that what Trump is selling is just so damned awful.

My personal feeling is that Trump is even worse than they assume. They are academics, after all, and tend to be reserved. I think the triple-whammy of higher deficits, mass deportations, and extreme tariffs, could be enough to knock down the American economy and lead to a long depression of 1930's magnitude. If he wins, and if he is actually able to carry out all his threats.

So it's not that I disagree that Kamala is the better choice, and by a long shot. My point was just that she's done a piss-poor job of selling it.

Well, doesnt she with her wanting to tax the rich?

Does she? Maybe, maybe not. She's hinted at higher taxes for the rich, but been pretty cagey about not getting pinned down on it.

The right has been trying to paint her as an extreme leftist. She obviously isn't, but she's so scared of the term that she's been ultra careful about soft-selling anything that might hint at extreme leftism.

Here's where you would have been better off with someone like Bernie Sanders. Someone who basically says, "yeah, I'm a socialist. The rich have been giving you the gears for forty years, it's time to take some ground back." Someone like Sanders who's not afraid to get in-your-face might be rejected by the electorate, or he might not. I would have at least given it a chance. There's plenty of evidence that the last 40 years have been a disaster for the working class in America. The rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer faster than at any time in the past. When a radical politician has the courage of his convictions and comes out swinging, he'll often surprise you.

Kamala's timid equivocating, trying to move the needle a little to the left but not too much, has only left people mostly uninspired.

There's still a chance that she'll make it, but I think she's now the underdog. A month ago she looked like she was winning.

Yeah, i get that, but growing the debt is pretty inevitebale anyways, just one will grow it significantly less. And i dont think she did a bad job messaging on that even when she exaggarating a bit, but thats the job i guess. And if she really taxes the rich or not is not the point here, its what she stands for. Can complain afterwards if she doesnt, and i will be one of them. Once Trump is in the bin of history its fair game.

And that shes pandering more to the middle and the Trump hating right is quite understandabale in that climate, coming out Bernie like would be beautiful but a disaster at this very moment imo. It will look Biden like, running as a moderate and shifting to the left afterwards, and the hard left rather holds their noses and vote for her than f.e. the Haley voters.

And nope, she isnt the underdog, she will win comfortable. Highly, highly doubt that Trump finds enough racists and sexists (and thats the ppl hes pandering to, as seen in yesterdays nazi rally) who arent already voting for him to turn that around.
The only thing im concerned of is that im not concerned at all. lol

[HitRed]

Many Texas precincts reporting over half of eligible voters have already voted! 3 hour lines.