I want to let you all in on a secret. You know the economic plans from Trump and Harris—tariffs, price gouging, no tax on tips, 3 million new houses, etc.?
None of it is going to happen. It's just empty, meaningless campaign talk.
Now you know.
36 thoughts on “Economic policy explained”
Comments are closed.
Not necessarily. If either candidate wins and has both the house and senate majorities I think some things will get done. Look at Biden in his first two years. It is possible.
With Harris some of it will happen. But she will later be criticized in the MSM when all of it isn’t. They will say she “failed”. With Trump all of that stuff will immediately be forgotten by all.
Note the current CNN headline:
“Harris’ plan to stop price gouging could create more problems than it solves”
Have you seen a comparable headline for any of Trump’s “proposals”? I sure haven’t.
Does this seem like a good idea, with climate change already happening:
"Former Trump official Ken Cuccinelli, who performed the role of DHS secretary under Trump, is a Project 2025 author who called for cutting FEMA, the federal agency that provides assistance after natural disasters destroy people's homes. " (From Meidas Touch)
Many of the promises on the right are about doing away with things we already have, such as abolishing the Dept of Education. If it were only a matter of not doing things promised, maintaining the status quo, we might be more sanguine but Trump is talking about taking away things that are important or essential to many of us.
I don't see the point of posting a "politicans don't keep their promises" article in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary. Trump did things in 2016 (tax cuts) and there were other things he didn't do (such as deal with covid effectively). No president is going to sit in office and do absolutely nothing. So what is the point of making this suggestion about ignoring campaign promises?
Talk about doing away with the National Weather Service...
I'm sure that the Weather Channel will jump right in and fund the thousands of satellite, weather balloon. on the ground, measurements that the Weather service does every day - which all the for-profit outlets now use for free.
Not sure about "none" but I doubt more than ten percent will be enacted.
It's interesting that you say this, but I think a deeper dive is required. The major cause here is not that "politicians don't keep their promises," but that they make promises that are impossible to keep. And that takes us back to an age-old misapprehension of Americans:
Presidents do not create laws.
And yet, all presidential candidates, Democrats or Republicans, claim "I am going to *pass* this, and I am going *pass* that." Usually on "Day one."
Presidents are not emperors, but we view them as if they are, and thus are *always* disappointed. This is entirely the fault of the American media, who portray presidential candidates as *personalities* -- which one do you "vibe" with, which one most reflects your sensibilities, which one seems "tough," and so on. And that ultimately comes down to which one is *least* intellectual, *least* educated, *least* thoughtful, *least* capable of understanding complexity and nuance, and therefore *least* qualified to lead.
People are not stupid; they are just woefully misled by a feckless media.
There is also a common rafrain "president X signed act Y", as if the signature is the only signifcant action, completely ignoring the votes in the congress (and whatever horse-trading that involved).
I think the price gouging thing will pass. Don't overreach, just model it after Florida's statute covering declared emergencies and then point to both Florida as setting the example for the nation. I'd love to see DeSantis attempt to repeal the sections of Florida law that discourages price gouging.
And I will bet you would have said the same thing about Biden's platform before he was elected, and yet an awful lot of what he promised came about. Record infrastructure and climate change investment, the first gun safety legislation (however minimal) in decades, expanded child tax credits, reshoring of manufacturing, etc.
I'll guessing that we may not get to the total number of housing units, but that Harris will push for it. The no tax on tips thing Trump proposed is never going to happen (it doesn't exclude $10M tips), but Harris's limited tax break on tips that applies to just certain income levels is a possibility.
Don't put down lofty aspirations, Kevin.
If she can inspire voters to support her and give her victory, that's already a big gain for America. If those voters are also inspired to support Democrats for the House and the Senate, and for state and local offices, that's a big step towards accomplishing at least some of what she's talking bout.
One's reach may exceed one's grasp. That's always true -- but it's never a reason to stop reaching.
Yabbut the Felon's economic "plans" -- some of which are overwhelmingly opposed by professional economists as, eg, wildly inflationary -- send the right signals to the right people: money for rich people good, money for non-rich non-White people bad, etc -- while the Silly Woman's ideas are just silly, because, well, you know women and money, I mean come ON ...
With Trump, zero percent of zero is zero. Harris would have to deal with Congress and that's what will prevent any useful moves from happening. Too many wealthy "constituents" (donors, that is) on both sides.
New names for Trump:
- Mr. Tic Tac
- Donald "I have a lot of cash" Trump
- Stable Genius
- I'm not weird, you're weird
- Bacon Rump
- Donardo Turnip
Yea, I agree, but it warms my heart
In general, voters should, and I think in general do, vote for character and attitudes rather than policies. That is because what a president or any other elected official will do depends on:
1) Circumstances.
2) Character and attitudes of the official.
Policy promises are useful only as a way of judging attitudes.
Here's something that will make no sense to people who've taken the blue pill, but will make perfect sense to people who've taken the red pill, and to children who haven't yet gotten around to taking a pill.
Knowing whether someone is telling the truth or telling a lie is relevant in a context in which the interest being served is known, and otherwise irrelevant. When John McCain lied to his captors in a prisoner of war camp, he was serving his country. When lying to a suspect, a detective is serving the suspect's alleged victims and the community. When he tells the truth, Donald Trump is serving Donald Trump.
Just because Kamala Harris or Tim Walz say something that a fact checker later proves is untrue doesn't mean they've stopped doing what they've been doing all along, which is serve the greater good. When someone shows you who they are, believe them, which is in lieu of making false equivalencies.
You’re harshing the buzz man …
I agree that a candidate will say whatever it takes to win.
So I was at the State Fair a couple of weeks ago and walked past the Trump for Prez stand and stopped to talk to them. Trump is the standout in this year's field because he actually was president for 4 years so I asked them "in 4 years what did he do for me personally?" I'm 65 years old, I have a job and a wife and 2 grown kids. They led with "fight woke," whatever the fuck that means, and after 2 of them flailed for a few minutes it degenerated into "Biden this Harris that."
The upshot is that the stalwarts manning the booth couldn't think of a single thing Trump did for me the whole time he was president. I could have brought up Operation Warp Speed (to help develop a covid vaccine) but the Rs are so busy pandering to the antivaxxers that they wouldn't have counted that.
Ad hominem:
An argument directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
From Wikipedia:
Typically, this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue.
Sad, and off point, as is so sadly usual.
Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey
the large print giveth and the small print taketh away
No tax on tips could happen. The restaurant industry like the idea. It's not that much money in the grand scheme of income taxes, and it will lower social security payouts a smidgen in future.
Decades ago, Molly Ivins laid down three rules for understanding what a politician would do: "The first is to look at the record. The second is to look at the record. And third, look at the record."
With that in mind, I've always mostly tuned out any promises/claims/plans offered by candidates. If they do happen to make good on some campaign promise or other, that's nothing to do with the promise--that's because of the person's basic nature and the conditions they meet once in office.
I say "mostly" because big campaign promises can matter a little. When a president makes some policy the centerpiece of their campaign, and wins, that's a demonstration of the plan's popularity, which fact can help them build support in congress.
A great example is the Affordable Care Act, which demonstrates both of the above principles. Health care reform was the central big idea of Obama's campaign, and that "mandate" helped him (and maybe more importantly, Speaker Pelosi) whip congress.
But the ACA also demonstrates that the details of campaign policy proposals don't matter--If you'd followed those policy details, especially during the primary when Obama and Clinton offered and debated dueling health care reform plans, you'd notice that the ACA that actually passed was much closer to Clinton's plan than Obama's.
One more example of the importance of a president running on a policy promise come to mind:
In 2005, President Bush tried to significantly cut social security. This effort failed, and at the time, there was a lot of talk about this effort coming out of nowhere. "We didn't vote for THIS," people said, and presumably congresspeople heard. The way I remember it, congresspeople were reluctant to go along with such an unpopular policy, and Bush had little ability to sway them because he'd kept this ambition a secret during his re-election campaign. Had he run on it, and won, maybe it would have worked. But the mere fact that he didn't run on it led people to suppose that if he had, he'd have lost, which congresspeople who wanted to keep their seats understood as a signal that they'd best not get aboard.
I don't think 3M new houses can happen with unilateral presidential action, but the executive department CAN set priorities for federal money through HUD (and other departments) and whatnot. They can change or set new priorities for grants that are given out every year. Some of these grants are pass-through funding through states, some are able to be awarded directly to eligible applicants. We apply for these NOFOs (notice of funding opportunities) all the time.
It can't create 3M new houses, but it certainly could create tens of thousands that wouldn't have existed without federal funding priorities. It's a worthy thing to talk about because every bit helps.
Also, we're short at least 4.5M housing units.
That's quite a retreat from
https://jabberwocking.com/does-anyone-care-about-the-deficit/
I guess it's no longer fun to mock the craziness of Trump's economic rants when each one is matched by something worse from Harris. Just like I said in my comment on that page.
Took some time for the Harris economic craziness to be noticed by her partisans, but better late than never.
Kevin is right that the debt is out of control, in a way that is scary, and in territory beyond the usual scare claims of the past. Problem is, there is little evidence that Team Harris are the people to do anything useful about it...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GTIINe6bgAAE4jU?format=jpg&name=large
Show us where the big scary national debt touched you.
Your take is nothing but bullshit.
You do know that most people don't cotton much to having their intelligence insulted, right? Fuck off, troll.
+1
What a maroon!
MEOOOOOW...Republicans always scare...never solve. Kitties know!
If one side gets control of the Presidency and Congress, many of the things could happen. Biden and Democrats did get many things done - why does Kevin ignore this? If control is split, which is likely, very little may happen.
Much of what Trump talks about is just nonsense and is not even real proposals. Ten million people will not be deported. But if Republicans get control there will be more tax cuts and deregulation - they have usually delivered on any promises about those things - or even if they have promised the opposite as Trump did initially.
You mean he won't be able to reduce car insurance rates by 50%? Or produce so much new oil that energy prices will plunge? Well, now I'm disillusioned.
Those things you're either worried about (Trump destroying the economy) or excited about (Harris making minor, incremental steps to improve the economy)? They don't worry or excite Kevin Drum, the smartest guy on the internet.
If journalists waste their time chanting "Where are her policies?", this is the result.
If on the other hand they all kept explaining to voters that
(1) it's very hard to achieve anything consequential in government thanks to a dysfunctional Congress, which presidents can't fix, and
(2) any "policy" which does get enacted reflects a lot of horse-trading which presidents can influence but not control,
then America might eventually have a slightly better informed electorate.