[Time 34:00]; DNC and “freedom”. While Republicans are more likely to have a conservative perspective towards cross-sex procedures, I believe that Trans people are safer when Republicans are in office. A Trans neighbor moved from the upper Tenderloin to lower nob hill due to concern about personal safety since Covid. She told me that she likes the “peace of mind” that she has in her new neighborhood. I tell this story because many freedoms are downstream from public safety.
Thank you Professor Loury for having the courage to publicly defend parents’ rights. In my state of California, our big city mayors and state governor view parents as the enemy and students as school property. Could parent voters cause a Trump win in California?
Parents’ rights ensure that parents are allowed to protect their children from harm according to personally-defined standards. Removing this fundamental right over state concern about abuse requires evidence and data; both of which are missing at the government’s end of the discussion. Instead of small Hepworth, the big APA should be the one presenting this argument.
[Time 3:00]; McWhorter on sabbatical to refresh rather than write. To me it sounds like a palette cleanser for the mind. Great idea. I have actually been on a retiree’s “sabbatical” since mid-April because I am painting my apartment and fixing maintenance-type problems along the way, room by room. It feels great to do something that is real or physical with immediate results. While being relatively disconnected from internet info and on a writing-pause; I have been able to discover very simple solutions in home maintenance that have eluded me for 29 years. Some of the solutions are very low level common sense, too.
I listened to this after a long break due to “John’s desire for Trumps death” episode. I’m glad I did. I am a white independent woman and listen to TGS to hear both sides. But this is the first time I was in full enthusiastic agreement with John on conventions, award shows, etc. How interesting to me that I found complete camaraderie with John. A basically non racial or political strongly held subject/opinion and I’ve never agreed with anyone else like this. Even the regular people that I follow and agree with often. It moved me and I have no real idea why.
Glenn, you can't go on like this and complain about theatre. =)
And btw, the presidency is serious enough to play hardball, especially these days.
At the end of the day, I am with John: I'll take this.
60-ish days ago, Biden embarrasses himself--along with the Democratic Party--in a debate against Trump. Not because Trump got the best of him, but because age has gotten the best of Joe.
About two weeks later, a sicko by the name of Thomas Matthew Crooks almost assassinates Trump. But for a matter of inches, the Republicans would have been forced to "foist" someone on us, too.
No one could have scripted this better if you're a Democrat. The GOP had the wind at their backs. The most iconic imagery imaginable: Blood running down Trump's face. Fist in the air. The American flag in the back against a blue sky. (Btw, how nutty does a guy have to be to pose for a photograph immediately after being shot and almost killed?)
Within a couple weeks, Trump picks JD Vance. (Talk about doubling-down on the base.)
The Republicans were strutting at their convention. Full cruise control.
Then just like that, the possible-but-not-probable goes down: Only three days after the GOP convention, Biden drops out of the race. The albatross has been removed.
Two days after that, his VP clinches enough delegates to become the Democratic nominee. And she EXPLODES! NOBODY saw that coming.
It proved how thirsty America was for an alternative. Trump was almost KILLED six weeks ago--like for REAL--and it's like it didn't even happen. Joe's octogenarian frailties were PAINFUL to watch. No longer an issue.
Now, Trump's the old man who rambles and talks about Hannibal Lecter. And of course, predictably, TRUMP and Co. have resorted to race-baiting. But not Kamala. She almost never talks about her race or ethnicity.
And of course, clowns like Megyn Kelly and Jesse Watters have resorted to sl*t-shaming. These are desperate moves by classless people. I expect nothing better. No informed person could.
As a proud NeverTrumper, this sh*t is hilarious, but I don't dare laugh too loud. This is probably a close race. One side will be super-ecstatic in November, and the other will be DEVASTATED.
One other message to John: The DNC absolutely targeted people who wouldn't naturally vote for them.
The last night of the DNC damn near threw progressives under the bus. Adam Kinzinger got a lot of time at peak prime time. If you look at Kamala's acceptance speech transcript, "Democrats" is uttered only once while "America" comes up at least 30 times. Her full-throated defense of Israel was definitely not a bone to the protestors outside.
PS - RFK Jr is an unabashed advocate for reparations. If I were part of the Harris campaign, I would remind Trump supporters about that everyday LOL
My 10-year old likes to watch the news with me. He asked about what the RNC was (it came in first) and I tried to explain. He gave me that looks kids give you when your answer means nothing. After a few speeches and so forth, he looked at me and said “So this is essentially a Pep Rally?” I think he pretty much nailed it. Knowing what to expect, he also enjoyed what he watched of the DNC, particularly the roll call.
Great and insightful episode. I never get tired of Glenn's rants.
I didn't really care for John's insults on Trump. But I agreed with him about Kamala winning the Presidency, but not being held to normal standards. I also agreed with him about the DNC being a show. It is performance.
Breakfast with the Lourys should be very interesting. Sign me up!!!
Trump and Harris supporters have fundamentally different views when it comes to cultural issues and government. A new analysis from Pew Research highlights several of them:
89% of Trump supporters believe gun ownership does more to increase safety by allowing law-abiding citizens to protect themselves compared to 18% of Harris supporters
80% of Harris supporters believe the legacy of slavery affects the position of black people in American society today a great deal/fair amount compared to 24% of Trump supporters
88% of Harris supporters believe that America's openness to people from all over the world is essential to who we are as a nation compared to 34% of Trump supporters
60% of Harris supporters believe that someone can be a man or a woman even if that is different than the sex they were assigned at birth compared to 7% of Trump supporters
83% of Trump supporters believe that the criminal justice system in this country is generally not tough enough on criminals compared to 39% of Harris supporters
60% of Trump supporters believe that society is better off if people make marriage and having children a priority compared to 17% of Harris supporters
84% of Trump supporters prefer a smaller government providing fewer services compared to 22% of Harris supporters
91% of Harris supporters believe the government has a responsibility to make sure all American have health care coverage compared to 32% of Trump supporters
72% of Trump supporters believe that government aid to the poor does more harm than good compared to 18% of Harris supporters
These divides are generally not bridgeable. Campaigns emphasize them to keep their bases energized, but poll after poll shows that economic issues are voters' highest priority. A new University of Chicago Institute of Politics survey of young people makes the case:
It’s no surprise the nation’s economy looms large in the minds of voters as they prepare to head to the polls in November.
Despite all the talk and numbers showing the country’s economic landscape has improved over the past four years, many people — and that includes younger adults — are not feeling it where it counts most: Their pockets.
So says a national poll of 2,000 young adults between the ages of 18 and 40 released last week by the University of Chicago Institute of Politics.
Overall, 25% of those polled cited income inequality (11%) or economic growth (14%) as the biggest problems facing the country. That’s a far higher figure than the percentage of respondents who cited the environment and climate change (4%), immigration (10%), gun control (5%), LGBTQ rights (1%) or some other issue on a long list of concerns.
In addition, 56% of respondents described the nation’s economy as either “somewhat” (32%) or “very” (24%) poor.
These results shouldn't surprise anybody who's been paying attention. The residual effects of inflation have diminished workers' wages. "Median usual weekly real earnings: Wage and salary workers: 16 years and over" peaked in the second quarter of 2020. They are down 6.4% as of the second quarter of this year. Use this link if you want to see the data:
A 6.4% pay cut really hurts if you live pay check to pay check, as do many Americans. It's no wonder that so many people have negative views about the economy.
The University of Chicago survey shows Harris gaining 38% of the votes of young people compared to 37% for Trump. All the talk about "freedom," "joy," and "weird"may resonate with Democrats, but the candidate who can make the strongest "kitchen table" argument will probably win the election.
I have a lot of respect for the folks who run the Penn Wharton Budget Model. That said, long-term economic forecasts are often inaccurate, especially when analysts try to flesh out the details of proposals before final legislation is or isn't completed.
Caveats noted, Trump's plan seems to be worse for the deficit over the next 10 years, but better than the Harris plan for overall economic growth based upon the "Key Points" sections of both assessments. Trump's plan creates shared prosperity across all income groups. The Harris plan provides more of an income boost for the bottom income quintile, but is a net negative for the top 5-10%. (See Table 3 of both assessments).
The Harris plan has drawn a lot of criticism from center-left newspapers, including the Washington Post Editorial Board:
They said it was full of gimmicks and called it a "disappointment" at the close of their post.
It's not clear whether the Harris plan could pass Congress.
Harris' goal of building three million new homes within four years is unrealistic even if Congress adopted her plan. Single family housing starts were at an 851,000 annual rate as of July, according to the US Census Bureau:
Harris seems to be suggesting that she can boost that by an extra 750,000 units per year (3 million new homes over four years), if I understand her plan. A look at how slowly Team Biden has built out new EV charging stations (seven new stations in the two years since Congress approved $7.5 billion to build out up to 500,000) helps set expectations:
Charging stations are much easier to build than single family homes, so suffice it to say that many analysts are skeptical that an additional 750,000 single family homes per year could be built. The Harris proposal to give $25,000 to first time home buyers would mostly benefit home sellers, not buyers, unless the supply of homes grew a lot faster than seems likely.
Presidential campaigns often make promises that don't come to fruition after elections. Voters should take the economic plans from both campaigns with a big grain of salt. .
The speeches at the DNC was 100% sophistry of the worst possible kind. The fallacious speeches and utter hypocrisy of the Democrat leaders, especially Kamala Harris, may satisfy people who are psychologically incapable of critical thinking. Telling such people that they must think for themselves, whilst the right thing to do, will upset them. Prescribing policies that demand MERIT as the base, without DEI BS, will hurt their feelings.
My prescription to ready the US ship of state. (1) Continue to follow the John Rawls philosophies, and never go beyond taxation as the remedy. (2) Continue to help those "who through no fault of their own (operative words)" fall through the cracks. (3) All citizens are equal and DEI philosphy is illegal. (4) With the Constitution in mind, all judges (SCOTUS excluded) should be obliged to face an independent and transparent judicial review process tri-annually. (5). Civil servants or ostensibly deemed civil servants, found to be corrupt or exgaged in 'Party politics' should face serious prison time. (6) MERIT and no DEI will in time level the playing field.
What struck me most about the DNC speeches (saw or read some) and Kamala Harris' ( I saw live) was what was not mentioned. Some economic and foreign policies could be inferred. No mention of 2 things I think independents are also concerned about, Law & order, antisemitism/anti-Asian hate. I think a simple line could have been. 'While we believe in free speech for all, we do not and will not support incitement to riot, injure, murder, plunder or pillage whether on the streets, public and private spaces. I you advocate for thus we will come after you with the full force of the law. We support our laws and those that enforce them.'
BTW I support neither. For one is misogynistic, narcissistic bastard who can't play nice with others & two is a masked progressive, hypocritical, P.C.-on-steroids loving bitch. I trust neither and especially those they would surround themselves with.
Law and order was mentioned briefly. "In our system of justice, a harm against any one of us is a harm against all of us. And I would often explain this to console survivors of crime, to remind them: No one should be made to fight alone. We are all in this together."
Thanks for responding. I understand your point, but what I got from that is another "social justice" reference to harm (microaggressions, etc) not actual harm or potentiating harm.
I used to like John, though I disagree with his political views. But the last straw is his suggesting that freedom of speech and press is not an important issue. If he was demonetized for positing something the government does not like or arrested like Durov, would he think different, or would he be like the true believers Solzhenitsyn wrote about in Gulag Archipeligo who thought they would be released from the Gulag if only Stalin knew they had been mistakenly arrested. I can see it now, "If only Kamala knew they had arrested me, she would set me free."
Surely there is a difference between a private company not “platforming” specific content per the government’s request and the government itself punishing speech, don’t you think?
He also acknowledged that Facebook "demoted" content from the NY Post regarding Biden family corruption while their fact checkers reviewed the content.
Zuckerberg now says that Facebook has changed their policies and would do things differently today. He also said that he would not repeat actions he took in 2020 to support "election infrastructure."
Clifton, I understand that it is significant that the government is, let’s say, “interfering” with the standard operation of a company that is a gatekeeper for free speech. I still don’t think that brings to mind Stalin and the Gulag.
After the Hilary’s emails mess, the media did not publish ill gotten information stolen from the Trump campaign. Is that a problem? Would it have been a problem if it wasn’t released because the government had requested it not be released? I believe some of this is just new and society hasn’t figured out how to handle it.
COVID was a disaster. Reporting on it was incomplete and only semi accurate. It showed just how bad our science education is in this country. Unfortunately, my choices affect you, and yours me so there was a vital public interests to be on the same page. The fact that Government and media did a truly awful job of doing that is a completely different, though clearly related, problem.
Same with the election. There are a lot of people who still believe absolutely ridiculous things about the 2020 election. It has caused a lot of societal strife and mistrust among our fellow citizens. Shouldn’t there be someone who has the ability to stop flagrant lies that are provably wrong and destructive from being spread? Even those huge lawsuits with enormous payouts on lies about voting machines have done little to change people’s minds… short of stopping the spread of unproven potential lies until the truth can be found what should we do?
We're mostly on the same page so I won't belabor the point other than to say that not many business executives want to get on the wrong side of the feds. They can make your life miserable and hurt your business. It's clear that Facebook buckled under to their pressure.
It's hyperbole to compare what Team Biden did to actions by Stalin, but their efforts to control the flow of information was still problematic and counter to the idea of free speech. It's clear, after the fact, that society would have been better off if we had known about the differences of opinion among credible scientists when policy decisions were being made.
The "demoting" of the NY Post article was problematic as well.
Clifton! You put your finger exactly on the problem. The powers that be decided scientists weren’t “credible” if they didn’t tow the party line, while allowing any half-baked comments of any old schmo as long as it didn’t contradict the party line. What we need is a better way to identify “credible” because it is hard. And someone can be credible on one subject and be talking nonsense on another. Maybe we need something like “peer review” for media, instead of algorithms that prefer engagement to accuracy…. That would be a big change.
Deciding who or what entity has the authority to determine truth v falsehood (and the authority to punish the transgression against official truth) is always - and will always be - *The Issue*. Considering for 30 seconds the possibility that "the other side" will have that authority should be sufficient for clear thinkers to determine the danger of allowing any centralized power such authority. Think of how stifling to creativity- and chilling to any productive dissent. I'm often shocked by how complacent John is in the face of facts revealed by Shellenberger, to name just one person. Power seeks to consolidate power. That's never good in any republic which claims to offer freedom from the tyranny of mobs OR minorities.
I so much enjoy these discussions. My issue with the DNC was more of a branding attempt than substantive policy future. To their credit the Democrats seized upon the opportunity to create a unifying affect on the party’s malaise after the Biden/Trump. It was manufactured, Hollywood production to create a mood, a buzz, as opposed to a vision; which none was given.
If John has Trump Derangement Syndrome then I think Glenn's coming down with a case of Kamala Derangement Syndrome.
Glenn has defended Trumps intelligence by virtue of the fact that he managed to get elected president, no such defense for Kamala.
Trump's popularity says something profound about the plight of the American working class that we ignore at our peril, but Kamala's surging popularity? Bleh.
How can Glenn say no one voted for Kamala? Millions of Americans voted for her in the primary for the exact role of being on deck should Biden quit. It would've been an insult to all those voters to throw all that away and start a new race.
That Shapiro or Newsome would've wiped the floor with Kamala in a fair primary is so obvious and self-evident that Glenn can just state it like a fact? Ooookay Glenn.
Actually quite different, because Trump Republicans believe, or at least claim to believe, that the United States is a miserable hellhole of a place. Part of why "joy" works for Dmeocrats right now is because it is a direct contrast message to the, er, stuff that the GOP currently prefers to shovel.
[Time 34:00]; DNC and “freedom”. While Republicans are more likely to have a conservative perspective towards cross-sex procedures, I believe that Trans people are safer when Republicans are in office. A Trans neighbor moved from the upper Tenderloin to lower nob hill due to concern about personal safety since Covid. She told me that she likes the “peace of mind” that she has in her new neighborhood. I tell this story because many freedoms are downstream from public safety.
Thank you Professor Loury for having the courage to publicly defend parents’ rights. In my state of California, our big city mayors and state governor view parents as the enemy and students as school property. Could parent voters cause a Trump win in California?
Parents’ rights ensure that parents are allowed to protect their children from harm according to personally-defined standards. Removing this fundamental right over state concern about abuse requires evidence and data; both of which are missing at the government’s end of the discussion. Instead of small Hepworth, the big APA should be the one presenting this argument.
[Time 3:00]; McWhorter on sabbatical to refresh rather than write. To me it sounds like a palette cleanser for the mind. Great idea. I have actually been on a retiree’s “sabbatical” since mid-April because I am painting my apartment and fixing maintenance-type problems along the way, room by room. It feels great to do something that is real or physical with immediate results. While being relatively disconnected from internet info and on a writing-pause; I have been able to discover very simple solutions in home maintenance that have eluded me for 29 years. Some of the solutions are very low level common sense, too.
1:01:48 BTW, RFK, Jr.'s middle name is "Francis." His uncle's middle name was "Fitzgerald."
I listened to this after a long break due to “John’s desire for Trumps death” episode. I’m glad I did. I am a white independent woman and listen to TGS to hear both sides. But this is the first time I was in full enthusiastic agreement with John on conventions, award shows, etc. How interesting to me that I found complete camaraderie with John. A basically non racial or political strongly held subject/opinion and I’ve never agreed with anyone else like this. Even the regular people that I follow and agree with often. It moved me and I have no real idea why.
Glenn has some amazing rants. I wish he could clip them and share them on instagram or some other app where more people could see them.
we're working on that.
insta: https://www.instagram.com/therealglennloury/
tiktok: https://www.tiktok.com/@glennlouryshow
youtube shorts: https://www.youtube.com/@GlennLouryShow/shorts
substack notes: https://glennloury.substack.com/notes
linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/glenn-loury-24155a13/
Glenn, you can't go on like this and complain about theatre. =)
And btw, the presidency is serious enough to play hardball, especially these days.
At the end of the day, I am with John: I'll take this.
60-ish days ago, Biden embarrasses himself--along with the Democratic Party--in a debate against Trump. Not because Trump got the best of him, but because age has gotten the best of Joe.
About two weeks later, a sicko by the name of Thomas Matthew Crooks almost assassinates Trump. But for a matter of inches, the Republicans would have been forced to "foist" someone on us, too.
No one could have scripted this better if you're a Democrat. The GOP had the wind at their backs. The most iconic imagery imaginable: Blood running down Trump's face. Fist in the air. The American flag in the back against a blue sky. (Btw, how nutty does a guy have to be to pose for a photograph immediately after being shot and almost killed?)
Within a couple weeks, Trump picks JD Vance. (Talk about doubling-down on the base.)
The Republicans were strutting at their convention. Full cruise control.
Then just like that, the possible-but-not-probable goes down: Only three days after the GOP convention, Biden drops out of the race. The albatross has been removed.
Two days after that, his VP clinches enough delegates to become the Democratic nominee. And she EXPLODES! NOBODY saw that coming.
It proved how thirsty America was for an alternative. Trump was almost KILLED six weeks ago--like for REAL--and it's like it didn't even happen. Joe's octogenarian frailties were PAINFUL to watch. No longer an issue.
Now, Trump's the old man who rambles and talks about Hannibal Lecter. And of course, predictably, TRUMP and Co. have resorted to race-baiting. But not Kamala. She almost never talks about her race or ethnicity.
And of course, clowns like Megyn Kelly and Jesse Watters have resorted to sl*t-shaming. These are desperate moves by classless people. I expect nothing better. No informed person could.
As a proud NeverTrumper, this sh*t is hilarious, but I don't dare laugh too loud. This is probably a close race. One side will be super-ecstatic in November, and the other will be DEVASTATED.
One other message to John: The DNC absolutely targeted people who wouldn't naturally vote for them.
The last night of the DNC damn near threw progressives under the bus. Adam Kinzinger got a lot of time at peak prime time. If you look at Kamala's acceptance speech transcript, "Democrats" is uttered only once while "America" comes up at least 30 times. Her full-throated defense of Israel was definitely not a bone to the protestors outside.
PS - RFK Jr is an unabashed advocate for reparations. If I were part of the Harris campaign, I would remind Trump supporters about that everyday LOL
My 10-year old likes to watch the news with me. He asked about what the RNC was (it came in first) and I tried to explain. He gave me that looks kids give you when your answer means nothing. After a few speeches and so forth, he looked at me and said “So this is essentially a Pep Rally?” I think he pretty much nailed it. Knowing what to expect, he also enjoyed what he watched of the DNC, particularly the roll call.
Great and insightful episode. I never get tired of Glenn's rants.
I didn't really care for John's insults on Trump. But I agreed with him about Kamala winning the Presidency, but not being held to normal standards. I also agreed with him about the DNC being a show. It is performance.
Breakfast with the Lourys should be very interesting. Sign me up!!!
Trump and Harris supporters have fundamentally different views when it comes to cultural issues and government. A new analysis from Pew Research highlights several of them:
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/08/26/the-political-values-of-harris-and-trump-supporters/
Here are a few examples:
89% of Trump supporters believe gun ownership does more to increase safety by allowing law-abiding citizens to protect themselves compared to 18% of Harris supporters
80% of Harris supporters believe the legacy of slavery affects the position of black people in American society today a great deal/fair amount compared to 24% of Trump supporters
88% of Harris supporters believe that America's openness to people from all over the world is essential to who we are as a nation compared to 34% of Trump supporters
60% of Harris supporters believe that someone can be a man or a woman even if that is different than the sex they were assigned at birth compared to 7% of Trump supporters
83% of Trump supporters believe that the criminal justice system in this country is generally not tough enough on criminals compared to 39% of Harris supporters
60% of Trump supporters believe that society is better off if people make marriage and having children a priority compared to 17% of Harris supporters
84% of Trump supporters prefer a smaller government providing fewer services compared to 22% of Harris supporters
91% of Harris supporters believe the government has a responsibility to make sure all American have health care coverage compared to 32% of Trump supporters
72% of Trump supporters believe that government aid to the poor does more harm than good compared to 18% of Harris supporters
These divides are generally not bridgeable. Campaigns emphasize them to keep their bases energized, but poll after poll shows that economic issues are voters' highest priority. A new University of Chicago Institute of Politics survey of young people makes the case:
https://politics.uchicago.edu/uploads/homepage/2024-08-August-Toplines-Public-Young-Adult-Sample-Race-x-Gender.pdf
Here's a link to a Chicago Sun-Times Editorial Board piece about the survey if you want the highlights:
https://chicago.suntimes.com/editorials/2024/08/26/economy-young-adults-2024-presidential-election-university-of-chicago-survey-editorial
Here's an excerpt:
It’s no surprise the nation’s economy looms large in the minds of voters as they prepare to head to the polls in November.
Despite all the talk and numbers showing the country’s economic landscape has improved over the past four years, many people — and that includes younger adults — are not feeling it where it counts most: Their pockets.
So says a national poll of 2,000 young adults between the ages of 18 and 40 released last week by the University of Chicago Institute of Politics.
Overall, 25% of those polled cited income inequality (11%) or economic growth (14%) as the biggest problems facing the country. That’s a far higher figure than the percentage of respondents who cited the environment and climate change (4%), immigration (10%), gun control (5%), LGBTQ rights (1%) or some other issue on a long list of concerns.
In addition, 56% of respondents described the nation’s economy as either “somewhat” (32%) or “very” (24%) poor.
These results shouldn't surprise anybody who's been paying attention. The residual effects of inflation have diminished workers' wages. "Median usual weekly real earnings: Wage and salary workers: 16 years and over" peaked in the second quarter of 2020. They are down 6.4% as of the second quarter of this year. Use this link if you want to see the data:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q
A 6.4% pay cut really hurts if you live pay check to pay check, as do many Americans. It's no wonder that so many people have negative views about the economy.
The University of Chicago survey shows Harris gaining 38% of the votes of young people compared to 37% for Trump. All the talk about "freedom," "joy," and "weird"may resonate with Democrats, but the candidate who can make the strongest "kitchen table" argument will probably win the election.
If you have seen it, how do you feel about UPenn’s assessment of the Harris and Trump economic plans?
Harris
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55693d60e4b06d83cf793431/t/66ccc9d07441b47ed5cb5b07/1724697040304/The+2024+Harris+Campaign+Policy+Proposals_Budgetary%2C+Economic+and+Distributional+Effects.pdf
Trump
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55693d60e4b06d83cf793431/t/66ccc99178eb2a27a4419a0d/1724696977394/The+2024+Trump+Campaign+Policy+Proposals_Budgetary%2C+Economic+and+Distributional+Effects.pdf
I have a lot of respect for the folks who run the Penn Wharton Budget Model. That said, long-term economic forecasts are often inaccurate, especially when analysts try to flesh out the details of proposals before final legislation is or isn't completed.
Caveats noted, Trump's plan seems to be worse for the deficit over the next 10 years, but better than the Harris plan for overall economic growth based upon the "Key Points" sections of both assessments. Trump's plan creates shared prosperity across all income groups. The Harris plan provides more of an income boost for the bottom income quintile, but is a net negative for the top 5-10%. (See Table 3 of both assessments).
The Harris plan has drawn a lot of criticism from center-left newspapers, including the Washington Post Editorial Board:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/08/16/harris-economy-plan-gimmicks/
They said it was full of gimmicks and called it a "disappointment" at the close of their post.
It's not clear whether the Harris plan could pass Congress.
Harris' goal of building three million new homes within four years is unrealistic even if Congress adopted her plan. Single family housing starts were at an 851,000 annual rate as of July, according to the US Census Bureau:
https://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/current/index.html
Harris seems to be suggesting that she can boost that by an extra 750,000 units per year (3 million new homes over four years), if I understand her plan. A look at how slowly Team Biden has built out new EV charging stations (seven new stations in the two years since Congress approved $7.5 billion to build out up to 500,000) helps set expectations:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2024/03/28/ev-charging-stations-slow-rollout/
Charging stations are much easier to build than single family homes, so suffice it to say that many analysts are skeptical that an additional 750,000 single family homes per year could be built. The Harris proposal to give $25,000 to first time home buyers would mostly benefit home sellers, not buyers, unless the supply of homes grew a lot faster than seems likely.
Presidential campaigns often make promises that don't come to fruition after elections. Voters should take the economic plans from both campaigns with a big grain of salt. .
Thanks again
My pleasure
The speeches at the DNC was 100% sophistry of the worst possible kind. The fallacious speeches and utter hypocrisy of the Democrat leaders, especially Kamala Harris, may satisfy people who are psychologically incapable of critical thinking. Telling such people that they must think for themselves, whilst the right thing to do, will upset them. Prescribing policies that demand MERIT as the base, without DEI BS, will hurt their feelings.
My prescription to ready the US ship of state. (1) Continue to follow the John Rawls philosophies, and never go beyond taxation as the remedy. (2) Continue to help those "who through no fault of their own (operative words)" fall through the cracks. (3) All citizens are equal and DEI philosphy is illegal. (4) With the Constitution in mind, all judges (SCOTUS excluded) should be obliged to face an independent and transparent judicial review process tri-annually. (5). Civil servants or ostensibly deemed civil servants, found to be corrupt or exgaged in 'Party politics' should face serious prison time. (6) MERIT and no DEI will in time level the playing field.
What struck me most about the DNC speeches (saw or read some) and Kamala Harris' ( I saw live) was what was not mentioned. Some economic and foreign policies could be inferred. No mention of 2 things I think independents are also concerned about, Law & order, antisemitism/anti-Asian hate. I think a simple line could have been. 'While we believe in free speech for all, we do not and will not support incitement to riot, injure, murder, plunder or pillage whether on the streets, public and private spaces. I you advocate for thus we will come after you with the full force of the law. We support our laws and those that enforce them.'
BTW I support neither. For one is misogynistic, narcissistic bastard who can't play nice with others & two is a masked progressive, hypocritical, P.C.-on-steroids loving bitch. I trust neither and especially those they would surround themselves with.
Law and order was mentioned briefly. "In our system of justice, a harm against any one of us is a harm against all of us. And I would often explain this to console survivors of crime, to remind them: No one should be made to fight alone. We are all in this together."
Thanks for responding. I understand your point, but what I got from that is another "social justice" reference to harm (microaggressions, etc) not actual harm or potentiating harm.
I used to like John, though I disagree with his political views. But the last straw is his suggesting that freedom of speech and press is not an important issue. If he was demonetized for positing something the government does not like or arrested like Durov, would he think different, or would he be like the true believers Solzhenitsyn wrote about in Gulag Archipeligo who thought they would be released from the Gulag if only Stalin knew they had been mistakenly arrested. I can see it now, "If only Kamala knew they had arrested me, she would set me free."
Surely there is a difference between a private company not “platforming” specific content per the government’s request and the government itself punishing speech, don’t you think?
Mark Zuckerberg has acknowledged that the Biden administration pressured Facebook to censor Covid-related content back in 2021:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/27/business/mark-zuckerberg-meta-biden-censor-covid-2021/index.html
He also acknowledged that Facebook "demoted" content from the NY Post regarding Biden family corruption while their fact checkers reviewed the content.
Zuckerberg now says that Facebook has changed their policies and would do things differently today. He also said that he would not repeat actions he took in 2020 to support "election infrastructure."
These acknowledgements are a big deal.
Clifton, I understand that it is significant that the government is, let’s say, “interfering” with the standard operation of a company that is a gatekeeper for free speech. I still don’t think that brings to mind Stalin and the Gulag.
After the Hilary’s emails mess, the media did not publish ill gotten information stolen from the Trump campaign. Is that a problem? Would it have been a problem if it wasn’t released because the government had requested it not be released? I believe some of this is just new and society hasn’t figured out how to handle it.
COVID was a disaster. Reporting on it was incomplete and only semi accurate. It showed just how bad our science education is in this country. Unfortunately, my choices affect you, and yours me so there was a vital public interests to be on the same page. The fact that Government and media did a truly awful job of doing that is a completely different, though clearly related, problem.
Same with the election. There are a lot of people who still believe absolutely ridiculous things about the 2020 election. It has caused a lot of societal strife and mistrust among our fellow citizens. Shouldn’t there be someone who has the ability to stop flagrant lies that are provably wrong and destructive from being spread? Even those huge lawsuits with enormous payouts on lies about voting machines have done little to change people’s minds… short of stopping the spread of unproven potential lies until the truth can be found what should we do?
Hi Amy,
We're mostly on the same page so I won't belabor the point other than to say that not many business executives want to get on the wrong side of the feds. They can make your life miserable and hurt your business. It's clear that Facebook buckled under to their pressure.
It's hyperbole to compare what Team Biden did to actions by Stalin, but their efforts to control the flow of information was still problematic and counter to the idea of free speech. It's clear, after the fact, that society would have been better off if we had known about the differences of opinion among credible scientists when policy decisions were being made.
The "demoting" of the NY Post article was problematic as well.
Clifton! You put your finger exactly on the problem. The powers that be decided scientists weren’t “credible” if they didn’t tow the party line, while allowing any half-baked comments of any old schmo as long as it didn’t contradict the party line. What we need is a better way to identify “credible” because it is hard. And someone can be credible on one subject and be talking nonsense on another. Maybe we need something like “peer review” for media, instead of algorithms that prefer engagement to accuracy…. That would be a big change.
Deciding who or what entity has the authority to determine truth v falsehood (and the authority to punish the transgression against official truth) is always - and will always be - *The Issue*. Considering for 30 seconds the possibility that "the other side" will have that authority should be sufficient for clear thinkers to determine the danger of allowing any centralized power such authority. Think of how stifling to creativity- and chilling to any productive dissent. I'm often shocked by how complacent John is in the face of facts revealed by Shellenberger, to name just one person. Power seeks to consolidate power. That's never good in any republic which claims to offer freedom from the tyranny of mobs OR minorities.
I so much enjoy these discussions. My issue with the DNC was more of a branding attempt than substantive policy future. To their credit the Democrats seized upon the opportunity to create a unifying affect on the party’s malaise after the Biden/Trump. It was manufactured, Hollywood production to create a mood, a buzz, as opposed to a vision; which none was given.
If John has Trump Derangement Syndrome then I think Glenn's coming down with a case of Kamala Derangement Syndrome.
Glenn has defended Trumps intelligence by virtue of the fact that he managed to get elected president, no such defense for Kamala.
Trump's popularity says something profound about the plight of the American working class that we ignore at our peril, but Kamala's surging popularity? Bleh.
How can Glenn say no one voted for Kamala? Millions of Americans voted for her in the primary for the exact role of being on deck should Biden quit. It would've been an insult to all those voters to throw all that away and start a new race.
That Shapiro or Newsome would've wiped the floor with Kamala in a fair primary is so obvious and self-evident that Glenn can just state it like a fact? Ooookay Glenn.
There are a lot of conservatives who are deeply cynical about all things to do with Democrats.
For symmetry it seems like Glenn should watch some speeches and pick key words from the RNC. I suspect the tone and themes would be nearly identical.
Actually quite different, because Trump Republicans believe, or at least claim to believe, that the United States is a miserable hellhole of a place. Part of why "joy" works for Dmeocrats right now is because it is a direct contrast message to the, er, stuff that the GOP currently prefers to shovel.