The "weirdness" of it all.

[Aseahawkfan]

I have never watched Trump in a debate. I went back to watch the 2016 presidential debate against Hilary to see if he was more lucid, which he was. That was a dirty debate. I now know why Trump has been investigated so relentlessly. Holy crap did he ether out Hilary and Bill, two of most vengeful and shrewd politicians in recent American history. He brought four women that embarrassed Bill and Hilary. They are never going to let him live that down. He's cooked. Oh boy, he should not have done that. That was a grave mistake in judgment to anger Bill and Hilary Clinton. Even the Bush's knew better than to do that. Damn, that was not smart. Ruthless and maybe worked for that election, but not smart. He really screwed up starting a war with the Clintons and the Obamas and the Bidens. He's going to suffer for that until he dies or cries uncle.

I guess I should have paid more attention in past years but Trump and his opponents have not been people I liked much. That was a gigantic mistake to go to go war with the Clintons. They are not nice people and not politically weak. They drove him out of New York and going to break him.

I guess Trump is cooked. Dude isn't going to live that down. Then pissing off the Cheneys as well which was probably one of his sources of protection before he angered Dick Cheney.

I guess Riverdog is right. He is pretty stupid or such an arrogant narcissist that he thinks he can beat anyone and everyone, which he can't. Now he's going to suffer until the end of his days for starting those political wars.

Boy, I did not realize he did something that stupid. That is stupider than all his rambling talk. No wonder he is getting investigated like he is. A political outsider who has made it personal for the opposition and pissed off the powerful politicians that could have helped protect him in his own party. What an idiot.

I'm done with this dirty chapter of American politics. I need it to be over.

[Aseahawkfan]

This is truly looney land. The Democrat is talking about the Republican raising taxes. Kamala said a whole lot of nothing while talking a lot using political speak. Stop price gouging? How are you even going to decide what price gouging is? Grocery stores earn small margins. Very small. Groceries are one of the lowest margin businesses. Making it seem like grocery stores are earning record profits is like talking about how the minimum wage is at a record level. Inflations causes profit increases without margin expansion and makes the cost of production higher which eats any benefit from "record" profits and shows again Kamala and the Democrats have no understanding of economics. This is just rubbish economics written to make people feel good.

[River Dog]

This is truly looney land. The Democrat is talking about the Republican raising taxes. Kamala said a whole lot of nothing while talking a lot using political speak. Stop price gouging? How are you even going to decide what price gouging is? Grocery stores earn small margins. Very small. Groceries are one of the lowest margin businesses. Making it seem like grocery stores are earning record profits is like talking about how the minimum wage is at a record level. Inflations causes profit increases without margin expansion and makes the cost of production higher which eats any benefit from "record" profits and shows again Kamala and the Democrats have no understanding of economics. This is just rubbish economics written to make people feel good.

That's my biggest complaint about Democrats, that they don't understand economics, think that raising wages won't affect inflation. They must not have been around in the 1980's when we had runaway inflation and one of the ways it was cured it, by getting out of COLA clauses in union contracts. How can a business hold the line on prices when the wages they pay are guaranteed to go up by 10%+? How can they not understand that by denying drug companies a profit on a new drug they have a patent on that it will result in fewer new and revolutionary drugs? They don't understand how a free-market economy works.

One only has to look at the situation California is currently in to see how inept they are at managing an economy. Establishing a minimum wage for just the big fast-food franchises as they did in CA raises the wages for all of them as both the little guy and the McDonald's and Wendy's compete for the same labor. It's so basic that it's hard for me to understand why they don't get it.

[I-5]

That's my biggest complaint about Democrats, that they don't understand economics, think that raising wages won't affect inflation. They must not have been around in the 1980's when we had runaway inflation and one of the ways it was cured it, by getting out of COLA clauses in union contracts. How can a business hold the line on prices when the wages they pay are guaranteed to go up by 10%+? How can they not understand that by denying drug companies a profit on a new drug they have a patent on that it will result in fewer new and revolutionary drugs? They don't understand how a free-market economy works.

One only has to look at the situation California is currently in to see how inept they are at managing an economy. Establishing a minimum wage for just the big fast-food franchises as they did in CA raises the wages for all of them as both the little guy and the McDonald's and Wendy's compete for the same labor. It's so basic that it's hard for me to understand why they don't get it.

Are you sure that's your biggest complaint? You said earlier you didn't know if empirical evidence that either party "knows how to handle high prices any differently" exists, and that there are too many things beyond their control, like the pandemic, the war in Ukraine, tensions in the Middle East, that have a huge influence on both the US economy as well as worldwide. Be that as it may, if Trump has any operating brain cells left, he should try to debate the economy with Harris, since it's his only chance to ask if people are better than they were 4 years ago. High prices are definitely an issue, not just wage increase, and Harris knows that despite your claim she doesn't understand it. What concrete evidence can Trump bring that prices would be lower for americans? We'll see.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

I care far more about how they’ll handle debates than any of the rhetoric they are spewing now. I need to see if either will state the plan to turn things around.

The thing I think Kamala needs to avoid is saying she’ll fix things if she is elected. That’s a bad call considering she’s been the VP of the current administration for the last 3 and half years. If Trump is smart, he’ll challenge her on why it hasn’t been getting better yet and why not implement the plan now as opposed to January 2025. He’ll of course have coherently lay out what he intends to do.

[Aseahawkfan]

That's my biggest complaint about Democrats, that they don't understand economics, think that raising wages won't affect inflation. They must not have been around in the 1980's when we had runaway inflation and one of the ways it was cured it, by getting out of COLA clauses in union contracts. How can a business hold the line on prices when the wages they pay are guaranteed to go up by 10%+? How can they not understand that by denying drug companies a profit on a new drug they have a patent on that it will result in fewer new and revolutionary drugs? They don't understand how a free-market economy works.

One only has to look at the situation California is currently in to see how inept they are at managing an economy. Establishing a minimum wage for just the big fast-food franchises as they did in CA raises the wages for all of them as both the little guy and the McDonald's and Wendy's compete for the same labor. It's so basic that it's hard for me to understand why they don't get it.

We disagree on drug pricing, which I understand from an investor's perspective. Drug pricing has a lot of controls in place as it is, but still is excessive.

Grocery stores are one of the most consumer friendly businesses in existence. They should not be getting attacked when they already run a high volume, low margin business that is experiencing massive competition which has driven prices down and hurt the grocery store business. The grocery market sector has a massive number of competitors off the top of my head: Kroger's, Albertson's, Costco, Grocery Outlet, Amazon, Walmart, Winco, Trader Joe's, and numerous other mom and pop's which are more expensive than your Big Box retailers. Even within the stores themselves, there is massive competition for price which grocery stores employing loss leaders like bread, milk, and meat because they know purchasing these products will lead customers to purchase other products with hopefully higher margins to use with their loss leaders. Grocery stores themselves are massive for competition by offering product variety at various price points with the grocery store acting as a delivery system controlling costs by managing distribution and the costs associated like fixed costs such as the store and variable costs like labor and electricity and refrigeration. The delivery system is where the store enters the competitive equation though some are vertically integrated and compete against shelf products with in-house brands.

It shows a very bad understanding of economics to go after grocery stores as the culprit in food costs given their low margins and how badly that business is doing even with "record" profits, which is a false statement if you delve deeper than a puddle on what it means financially.

[Aseahawkfan]

Are you sure that's your biggest complaint? You said earlier you didn't know if empirical evidence that either party "knows how to handle high prices any differently" exists, and that there are too many things beyond their control, like the pandemic, the war in Ukraine, tensions in the Middle East, that have a huge influence on both the US economy as well as worldwide. Be that as it may, if Trump has any operating brain cells left, he should try to debate the economy with Harris, since it's his only chance to ask if people are better than they were 4 years ago. High prices are definitely an issue, not just wage increase, and Harris knows that despite your claim she doesn't understand it. What concrete evidence can Trump bring that prices would be lower for americans? We'll see.

What we do know is attempts at price controls and minimum wage increases do not have a long-term positive impact on the market. Which is why anyone that can remember past a few years or less should know that minimum wage and price controls have been around for decades and have proven not to work for making life more affordable long-term. Why do you think the wage increases due to inflation have caused massive price spiking? It's a phenomenon called the wage-price spiral in economics and price controls or minimum wage increases do not fix this type of inflation. It's the science of economics which I don't understand why left wing economists keep trying to push these fixes that don't work. Increase supply works. Every basic economic book teaches the supply-demand intersection with price will cause price to decrease when supply increases. Supply cannot increase to a level where providing a good or service will not be profitable or supply must drop to a point where supply-demand meet at a level that allows a sufficiently attractive profit margin to attract producers.

The Republicans don't have the answer other than let the free market work. If you have a demand or supply problem, then take action to fix that. Price controls and minimum wage fix neither a supply or demand problem. They artificially put a ceiling in place for a price which puts downward pressure on supply which is why you get the bread line jokes and minimum wage inflates the cost of the labor which leads to inflation as the cost of an input increases the price which gets passed on the consumer. Even Democratic economists should understand this if they aren't subscribing to Marxist socialist/communist economic philosophy which doesn't and never has worked.

Price controls and minimum wages are at best short-term fixes that will lead to long-term problems. Which is why no matter how often they try these methods, it always leads back to the same problem.

Harris isn't an economist. From what I understand her father is a Marxist economist trying to disguise himself as a more palatable Keynesian economist. Keynes is a major influence on Democratic economics as his contribution to economic theory was deeply entwined with the big G of the GDP equation: government. Keynes was not a Marxist. The Democratic Party has far too many Marxist economists when it has proven again and again that Marx was bad economics. His book is only influential because of the rise of Socialism and Communism which have been proven not to be sustainable, long-term economic theories for a variety of reasons mostly to do with human behavior.

I doubt Kamala gains sufficient Congressional power to implement her plan and this is merely populist drivel much like Trump's to buy votes. Vote buying and fear mongering are two ways these modern political parties pursue power.

[Aseahawkfan]

I care far more about how they’ll handle debates than any of the rhetoric they are spewing now. I need to see if either will state the plan to turn things around.

The thing I think Kamala needs to avoid is saying she’ll fix things if she is elected. That’s a bad call considering she’s been the VP of the current administration for the last 3 and half years. If Trump is smart, he’ll challenge her on why it hasn’t been getting better yet and why not implement the plan now as opposed to January 2025. He’ll of course have coherently lay out what he intends to do.

I don't even know what metrics they can call on other than inflation for America having a problem. It seems like fabrication at this point.

Our unemployment is at 4.3 percent, which is great. Inflation is moderately bad, but nowhere like the 70s. Stock market is riding high. Interest rates are at a high enough point you can earn income in bonds and other fixed income investments.

When I look at the economy listening the economic news, I would say focusing on property pricing is likely most important. Rents are pretty insane. Housing is insanely priced as well. Supply has not kept up with demand for housing. That is a bigger cost problem than food or anything else and has been for a while.

Problem is expanded home building goes against the Democrats environmental plank as expanded housing requires zoning more land for home building which causes human expansion which impacts the environment. From what I've seen it seems that more housing is getting zoned for rental property versus home ownership. Rental properties are more consistent revenue streams as well as appreciation on the underlying property.

I would focus less on food costs and far more a big push to expand home building to increase supply to to cut down home pricing. That would do the most to help the economy given the current problems. Though there is also the concern that we are going to have a huge die off soon with housing supply increasing when a large percentage of boomers pass away leaving their houses to their children or the market. I figure that supply issue will be counteracted by immigration which means we still need more houses built to boost supply to put downward pressure on housing costs.

[River Dog]

We disagree on drug pricing, which I understand from an investor's perspective. Drug pricing has a lot of controls in place as it is, but still is excessive.

Some drugs, such as insulin, yes, they're overpriced. And I don't mind some controls on drugs that have been on a market for a relatively long period of time. What I'm talking about is new drugs that haven't had their patent expire yet. A healthy profit motive is necessary in order for a company to justify spending huge amounts of money on research and development as many new drugs don't even make it to market. Otherwise, they're just going to sell aspirin and Ibuprofen that they can make cheaply, don't have to fund an R&D department, and know that they can make some money on.

Grocery stores are one of the most consumer friendly businesses in existence. They should not be getting attacked when they already run a high volume, low margin business that is experiencing massive competition which has driven prices down and hurt the grocery store business. The grocery market sector has a massive number of competitors off the top of my head: Kroger's, Albertson's, Costco, Grocery Outlet, Amazon, Walmart, Winco, Trader Joe's, and numerous other mom and pop's which are more expensive than your Big Box retailers. Even within the stores themselves, there is massive competition for price which grocery stores employing loss leaders like bread, milk, and meat because they know purchasing these products will lead customers to purchase other products with hopefully higher margins to use with their loss leaders. Grocery stores themselves are massive for competition by offering product variety at various price points with the grocery store acting as a delivery system controlling costs by managing distribution and the costs associated like fixed costs such as the store and variable costs like labor and electricity and refrigeration. The delivery system is where the store enters the competitive equation though some are vertically integrated and compete against shelf products with in-house brands.

It shows a very bad understanding of economics to go after grocery stores as the culprit in food costs given their low margins and how badly that business is doing even with "record" profits, which is a false statement if you delve deeper than a puddle on what it means financially.

Agreed. There's tons of competition for food products. You can buy fresh produce year-round, asparagus from Peru, for example. My former employer found it hard to find a market for some of our smaller potatoes because they couldn't produce, package, ship, and store it cheap enough to sell, so we end up sending it to cattle feed.

[I-5]

In general, prices go up over time, and there's no going back. Hence, $.05 cokes and $.10 hamburgers, so really it's rising wages that can balance out the cost of living over time. That's what history shows. But some eras are still better than others. We've had it pretty good the last 30 years or so, under both republicans and democrats....until after the pandemic.

[Aseahawkfan]

In general, prices go up over time, and there's no going back. Hence, $.05 cokes and $.10 hamburgers, so really it's rising wages that can balance out the cost of living over time. That's what history shows. But some eras are still better than others. We've had it pretty good the last 30 years or so, under both republicans and democrats....until after the pandemic.

Taxes also negatively impact prices and cash flows, which never gets much discussed by Democrats. Part of the reason costs have gone up is increased and layered in taxation which acts as an additional expense the consumer ends up paying. On top of their income getting taxed which reduces their buying power by the amount of taxation. So a person paying 20 cents of every dollar to the government ends up earning only 80 cents on the dollar, which is why it is vitally important that taxpayers make sure their taxes are being spent effectively as it is harming their ability to use their income in a productive manner.

It's a big reason why I tend to avoid Democrats as their plan to tax people to spread the wealth is one of the most economically bad ideas there is as they take money from the more productive people to give it to the less productive people to use for subsistence living which leads to a massive waste of resources. Which is why you have seen such a massive failure of Marxist economic policy. Infrastructure spending and similar expenditures should be targeted, but if not effective expenditure is there the government should not seek additional taxation just to justify the taxation itself as it seems like Democrats do quite often now always under the guise of helping the poor. The middle class would be greater helped by reducing their tax burden and adjusting some common middle class tools for wealth building like the 30 year mortgage which has been the primary culprit for housing price increases on top of a low supply by making home prices based on the amount of money you can borrow over 30 years rather than some much lower price like a 15 or 10 year mortgage.

I am wondering when the law of large numbers hit the housing market. How much higher can you go when you're at 1 million for a starter house even with a 30 year mortgage? One is left to wonder.

[I-5]

By less productive I think is what others would call more vulnerable. What do you suggest happens to those people? I recognize that not everyone has the same abilities or the given the same starting point in life. There is also prevalent mental illness in the US can be fatal without reserouces to support. Ship them somewhere? How do you make our system benefit more people, or does it just benefit those who have the means to get ahead? I realize this is a huge question that doesn't have a satisfactory answer. I don't think any party has the right answer on it either, but I want to know who is trying to seiously address it. A microcosm of this question is the concept of charter schools, which their very existence implies that public schools aren't good enough. So intead of fixing the problem, just leave them to rot and create more privileged schools.

[River Dog]

By less productive I think is what others would call more vulnerable. What do you suggest happens to those people? I recognize that not everyone has the same abilities or the given the same starting point in life. There is also prevalent mental illness in the US can be fatal without reserouces to support. Ship them somewhere? How do you make our system benefit more people, or does it just benefit those who have the means to get ahead? I realize this is a huge question that doesn't have a satisfactory answer. I don't think any party has the right answer on it either, but I want to know who is trying to seiously address it. A microcosm of this question is the concept of charter schools, which their very existence implies that public schools aren't good enough. So intead of fixing the problem, just leave them to rot and create more privileged schools.

We don't know how to fix the mental health/homeless crisis, but we know what doesn't fix it, and that's blindly throwing money at the problem as they have in Democrat-run California. I am to the point where I think that they should criminalize homelessness if they don't want to accept treatment and job placement. I also think that we should roll back some of these liberal drug laws, re-criminalize hard drugs, increase enforcement and interdiction. We cannot allow homeless folks to interfere with the livelihoods of others.

One of the problems with the housing crisis is the baby boomer generation. We're healthier than our preceding generations as we didn't grow up smoking 2 packs of cigarettes a day and aren't going into assisted living and nursing homes at the same rate. The exponential cost of these facilities has contributed to this reluctance to move out of our homes. Boomers are staying in their homes longer, homes that used to go on the market. Once the boomers are out of the way, the current pressure on housing will be eased, so in some respects, the problem will fix itself.

Another problem with housing is interest rates, which are driven by inflation. Limit borrowing on credit cards and car loans by cracking down on the lenders: "Good credit, bad credit, no credit, come on down!" We need to do something to increase the savings rate of individuals by limiting the supply of money and restrict them from buying unnecessary items and allowing them to live beyond their means.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

A microcosm of this question is the concept of charter schools, which their very existence implies that public schools aren't good enough. So intead of fixing the problem, just leave them to rot and create more privileged schools.

I had long response for this, since it's a huge thing happening in my neck of the woods, but the shorter version is a lot of money is being thrown at the public education system in my area, and it isn't producing results. The number one reason is the students aren't coming from homes that value education. They treat the public school system like a daycare and show no investment in their child doing well in school. Charter schools, magnet schools, private school, moving out of the parish (i.e. county) into adjacent parishes with good public schools, and incorporating areas of the parish into independent cities with their own independent school districts are all responses to a poorly managed and poorly performing public school system, and all of those options are vilified as leaving the less fortunate behind.

So my question is, what are the Democrats (who I assume you're saying are serious about fixing this problem) actually doing to fix this problem other than throwing money at it like has been done for decades? You can't make people do better simply by dumping money into the system. As far as how you can get to the bedrock level and make families/communities/cultures care about their education and role in a functioning society, I don't know, but more money isn't making these people do better. Republicans don't have the answer either, but I'm hesitant to throw money at half-measures and ineffective would-be solutions just for the sake of trying.

[Aseahawkfan]

By less productive I think is what others would call more vulnerable. What do you suggest happens to those people? I recognize that not everyone has the same abilities or the given the same starting point in life. There is also prevalent mental illness in the US can be fatal without reserouces to support. Ship them somewhere? How do you make our system benefit more people, or does it just benefit those who have the means to get ahead? I realize this is a huge question that doesn't have a satisfactory answer. I don't think any party has the right answer on it either, but I want to know who is trying to seiously address it. A microcosm of this question is the concept of charter schools, which their very existence implies that public schools aren't good enough. So intead of fixing the problem, just leave them to rot and create more privileged schools.

To address the first question, the government should not run as a charity. They have no responsibility to care for people unable to cut it.

For myself, I'm willing to pay into a pool for people who could use some help for problems that are not self-inflicted and not artificially created issues like "I decided abusing heroin was a good idea and found it wasn't even after it information indicating heroin abuse is bad is glaring, easily available, and easy to comprehend" that the doctors try to paint as some disease or pre-determined event using determinism as some excuse for terrible decisions. Humans should be held accountable for bad decisions. Americans have no responsibility financially to care for those that make bad decisions with their lives, which is why charities or similar organizations should be left to feel the needs of rehabbing such folk when they reach the point they seek it out, not the government. But for families who are dealing a medical issue like a child with Down Syndrome or a life threatening disease, then I think help can and should be provided as a shared societal burden as that is not self-inflicted. As far as poor people, I grew up what might be called poor, but you're only poor if if consider yourself such and have no pride to make a better life for yourself as I chose to do. No one paid a dime for my education, saved any of the money I earned, or gave me anything and I didn't ask either. I buckled down, learned how the system work, and made better decisions than my parents. Society owed me nothing for the bad decisions of my parents. They made their choices and kids suffer for it and have to recover from such bad decisions. It is not your neighbor's fault your parents do stupid thing or that you do stupid things and should not be expected to pay for it. You have to suck it up and make better decisions so you don't end up down the same dark roads as others. You can't control those people either, so they gotta learn the lessons the hard way and experience the consequences. They'll either learn and rise or fall deeper in and no amount of money is going to pull them out by the government or anyone else.

Public schools are lacking, I would not send my child to a public school. I found public school to be heavily inadequate. I attended Catholic private school from 4th to 7th grade and my goodness was that an eye opener in comparison to public school. In private school they did not overlook you at all. You could not fail to do homework. If you acted up, you were put back in line. You were expected to read at a higher level early on than public school to ensure you could read The Bible with its archaic language. You could not score low on tests or perform at a low level. They required a B average at least or your parents would be called.

Then I go to public school and the teachers are overwhelmed. They barely notice if you're there. The curriculum in 8th grade was material I covered in 5th grade. Some of the other kids could not read well and had trouble pronouncing words I had been spelling and pronouncing for years. The discipline was heavily lacking. It was not a great environment. I have heard there are some high quality public schools out there, but if you can send your kids to private schools or schools with much higher standards and expectations. Public schools are there to push kids through catering to the widest possible performance and intelligence levels allowing many kids to move through school knowing very little graduating with D averages.

There is no fixing it in the modern day because liberals think being nice gets things done and it doesn't. High standards, strongly enforced pushes people to a higher level. The people who can't perform should be pushed in trade preparation or the like as they do in England. My buddy said in England they'll decide whether you go to the University or not based on your performance by 16. A lot of other countries have far more competitive public school systems than America. Thus you see these kids graduate from public school with deficient education and preparation as they enter college requiring them to take remedial courses on material that should have already been covered costing them more money.

The liberals are always, "Throw more money at it. More taxes. That'll fix it." No, it won't. There is less money spent in other nations on education and they get better results because they have higher standards they enforce that parents must comply with or their kids will miss out on opportunities. They don't overlook bad performance and pass people on with Ds and Cs because they want to move the kid on.

Right now there is a severe lack of behavioral standards in America, often argued against by liberals on the basis of some form of discrimination. It's a bad way to run a competitive school system. Fortunately our universities don't run in a similar fashion which is why American higher education at the university level doesn't reward poor performance and does punish a lack of performance and knowledge. But that is a big shock when these kids that have attended K1 to K12 go from, "Pass you through with Cs and Ds. Have fun with your friends. Attend the dance and party on weekends" to "We don't care if you had something happen or were tired, get your homework done, perform on the test, or find something else to do with yourself." It only gets worse as you move to Master and PhD level education. So not having better performance standards at the K1 to K12 level harms your people when they enter the University level education system and I'm not sure how you fix that with a group of liberal politicians not wanting to put "too much pressure on those poor kids."

Republicans want to punish teachers which I mostly disagree with. I watched public school teachers try to push kids harder only to get resistance from their parents complaining about difficult circumstances and a school administration that sided with the parents to avoid legal entanglements or problems. So the scholastic system decdied it was easier to pass kids on with Cs and Ds than try to push kids harder to perform better. So how do you fix that unless your government is going to side against the voter and say point blank, "You're kid needs to do better. You need to help do better or they're going to suffer the consequences of poor perofrmance."

[River Dog]

A microcosm of this question is the concept of charter schools, which their very existence implies that public schools aren't good enough. So intead of fixing the problem, just leave them to rot and create more privileged schools.

I had long response for this, since it's a huge thing happening in my neck of the woods, but the shorter version is a lot of money is being thrown at the public education system in my area, and it isn't producing results. The number one reason is the students aren't coming from homes that value education. They treat the public school system like a daycare and show no investment in their child doing well in school. Charter schools, magnet schools, private school, moving out of the parish (i.e. county) into adjacent parishes with good public schools, and incorporating areas of the parish into independent cities with their own independent school districts are all responses to a poorly managed and poorly performing public school system, and all of those options are vilified as leaving the less fortunate behind.

So my question is, what are the Democrats (who I assume you're saying are serious about fixing this problem) actually doing to fix this problem other than throwing money at it like has been done for decades? You can't make people do better simply by dumping money into the system. As far as how you can get to the bedrock level and make families/communities/cultures care about their education and role in a functioning society, I don't know, but more money isn't making these people do better. Republicans don't have the answer either, but I'm hesitant to throw money at half-measures and ineffective would-be solutions just for the sake of trying.

It's the same story with the homeless problem, trying to fix it by throwing money at it. They never get to the root cause.

[Aseahawkfan]

It's the same story with the homeless problem, trying to fix it by throwing money at it. They never get to the root cause.

The root cause is, "I like doing drugs and don't want to work, so I'm going to be a homeless beggar and find enough money to buy my drugs daily."

Not everyone as some truly have mental problems, but a lot of it in Seattle and Washington State from what I've seen which is pissing people off. You offer to clean people up and help them find jobs, they don't want them. Interferes with their drug use.

I've watched a couple of friends descend into heroin. Nothing you can do for them until they want out. I've seen more than a few folks descend into the bottle. Nothing you can do for them until they want something else. It's best even if hard to let them to go where they're going and give them help when they finally want it and that doesn't mean handing them cash to buy more drugs or letting them steal it from you. It's a horrible thing to watch, but when they are locked into those drugs it's all they care about.

[River Dog]

It's the same story with the homeless problem, trying to fix it by throwing money at it. They never get to the root cause.

The root cause is, "I like doing drugs and don't want to work, so I'm going to be a homeless beggar and find enough money to buy my drugs daily."

Not everyone as some truly have mental problems, but a lot of it in Seattle and Washington State from what I've seen which is pissing people off. You offer to clean people up and help them find jobs, they don't want them. Interferes with their drug use.

I've watched a couple of friends descend into heroin. Nothing you can do for them until they want out. I've seen more than a few folks descend into the bottle. Nothing you can do for them until they want something else. It's best even if hard to let them to go where they're going and give them help when they finally want it and that doesn't mean handing them cash to buy more drugs or letting them steal it from you. It's a horrible thing to watch, but when they are locked into those drugs it's all they care about.

I haven't seen an objective, definitive study that shows what you're saying, but it's certainly my gut feel. I also get the feeling that the lifestyle in some ways appeals to them, that they have a social network of sorts that keeps them feeling wanted or worth something.

My plan would be to make available the resources they need to get straight, give them some very basic housing, ie tents, cots, space heaters, etc, give them food that grocery stores can't sell, like stuff beyond the expiration date so long as it's not unhealthy, keep them isolated from the general public, assist them with job placement and housing if they get themselves straight and prove it by passing multiple drug tests, roll back most if not all of these liberalized drug laws, criminalize homelessness, and build more prisons if we have to, like Escape from New York. I don't know if it would work or not, but the bleeding-heart, I feel your pain carrot method practiced by liberals damn sure hasn't. Time for an entirely different approach.

[Aseahawkfan]

I haven't seen an objective, definitive study that shows what you're saying, but it's certainly my gut feel. I also get the feeling that the lifestyle in some ways appeals to them, that they have a social network of sorts that keeps them feeling wanted or worth something.

My plan would be to make available the resources they need to get straight, give them some very basic housing, ie tents, cots, space heaters, etc, give them food that grocery stores can't sell, like stuff beyond the expiration date so long as it's not unhealthy, keep them isolated from the general public, assist them with job placement and housing if they get themselves straight and prove it by passing multiple drug tests, roll back most if not all of these liberalized drug laws, criminalize homelessness, and build more prisons if we have to, like Escape from New York. I don't know if it would work or not, but the bleeding-heart, I feel your pain carrot method practiced by liberals damn sure hasn't. Time for an entirely different approach.

I'm being a bit facetious as the problem is more complex than that. I know there are people with mental and physical conditions who can end up homeless that need real help as well as frictional temporary homelessness where people are between homes and end up homeless for short periods of time due to falling on hard times.

But a portion of people out there enjoy drugs and like living the nomadic drug user life. I've met these people who live that life and enjoy it. They are not interested in changing. When pressed by someone who wants to believe that every person can be "saved" will tell a story that fits the "everyone is a victim" narrative that gets sold in TV shows and politics, but the reality is they just enjoy the drugs and being high. You have to accept they enjoy it and that a certain portion of people are locked into that lifestyle and should not be assisted or catered to until they decide to change. It is bad tossing money their way as it will get used to sustain their lifestyle.

The problem society has is filtering these folks to help those that truly need it and will use the help productively or must be sustained due to a real mental or physical disability that requires assistance and willingly self-destructive people who enjoy the drug lifestyle and will only use investment in their betterment to further debase themselves. These folks should be left to the consequences of their choices.

I have become a realist in regards to the homeless and the reality of drug addiction. When younger I bought into the more bleeding heart liberal "everyone's a victim who can be saved" narrative, but knowing many drug addicts, alcoholics, and other types of addicts like gambling, I found out the reality is the same positive outcome that come from loving something like working out or working a job you love or the neutral outcome of loving a TV show is one type of passion. But someone loving heroin or alcohol as their favorite pastime activity is also a very real passion for some. Some people love being high and it's not just the addictive properties of the drug causing it, but a genuine enjoyment of being high or under the influence of the drug. And you just have to let things happen until they decide to change or you have to take harsh measures to change them as they won't respond to half-measures or being nice. That's my experience living around this stuff. This nice guy liberal crap is about as effective as being nice to a bully while he's punching you in the face and taking your money every day. You can either wait until someone wants to change or force change with extreme measures. Anything in-between doesn't work in my experience.

[I-5]

I agree with a lot of the comments here regarding homeless and public schools. Throwing money isn't the answer. The problem is, what is the answer? Just making the forto mer illegal and abandoning the latter also isn't the answer. There has to be better answers and policies. Neither party so far has cracked the code on it. Maybe we can learn from others.

Edit: in the case of schools, I agree that it comes down to the home. It doesn't matter if you're in public, private, charter school...if your family life sucks, it's going to be harder. In our home, 3 of us kids went to publc schools, and 1 (the youngest) went to a private catholic high school. Ironically, the 3 public school kids all were able to complete 4 year university degrees in time, and the one that went to private school had the most struggles, going back and forth between community colleges, taking a break, coming back, before finally getting a 2 year degree. All 4 kids turned out fine and have professional careers, and the biggest factor is that we had a supportive home...though not overly so. My parents just expected us to to get good grades, but didn't lecture or threaten us. We just didn't want to disappint them. We also weren't forced to move out at certain age, so there was less pressure when turning 18 for example. We all moved out on our own time, and it was great.

[I-5]

Back to the OP and the weirdness of it all, I looked into the republican line that Tim Walz mandated that boys restrooms carry tampons. The boring truth is that the measure Walz signed already exists in half the states, and was authored by 2 students who wanted to support their fellow students by having schools provide feminine hygiene products to any menstruating students. The idea is some students aren’t prepared for their period (for example they’ve never had a period before and didn’t being a tampon) to help them avoid embarrassment if an accident happens at school. It wasn’t a political issue, until Walz was tapped to be Harris’ running mate. This is a classic example of looking for problems, and how weird for republican attack dogs to spin it the way they did. Weird is accurate.

[River Dog]

Back to the OP and the weirdness of it all, I looked into the republican line that Tim Walz mandated that boys restrooms carry tampons. The boring truth is that the measure Walz signed already exists in half the states, and was authored by 2 students who wanted to support their fellow students by having schools provide feminine hygiene products to any menstruating students. The idea is some students aren’t prepared for their period (for example they’ve never had a period before and didn’t being a tampon) to help them avoid embarrassment if an accident happens at school. It wasn’t a political issue, until Walz was tapped to be Harris’ running mate. This is a classic example of looking for problems, and how weird for republican attack dogs to spin it the way they did. Weird is accurate.

Yeah, despite the advice of a lot of senior Republicans, like Lindsey Graham, the Trump campaign is not keeping their eye on the prize by focusing on the real issues that will decide the election, like the economy and inflation, issues that surveys have said gives Republicans an edge. Trump is obsessed with completely irrelevant things, like crowd sizes and personal attacks against his opponent. He just can't get that professional wrestler personality out of his system. Kinda like asking a tiger to change the color of their stripes.

[I-5]

Yeah, despite the advice of a lot of senior Republicans, like Lindsey Graham, the Trump campaign is not keeping their eye on the prize by focusing on the real issues that will decide the election, like the economy and inflation, issues that surveys have said gives Republicans an edge. Trump is obsessed with completely irrelevant things, like crowd sizes and personal attacks against his opponent. He just can't get that professional wrestler personality out of his system. Kinda like asking a tiger to change the color of their stripes.

Unfortunately, I think the problem goes deeper than Trump. He's not the one that came up with this weird line of attack. Someone else did. This isn't the party of the recent past, the party of Romney (who I respect and admire), or even the party of George W. Maybe Trump has infected the party too much? MAGA itself is a beast that needs to be driven far away from the republican party. When I see and hear MAGA in the media, they don't resemble my many conservative friends who I talk to in real life. Their party is gone.

[River Dog]

Unfortunately, I think the problem goes deeper than Trump. He's not the one that came up with this weird line of attack. Someone else did. This isn't the party of the recent past, the party of Romney (who I respect and admire), or even the party of George W. Maybe Trump has infected the party too much? MAGA itself is a beast that needs to be driven far away from the republican party. When I see and hear MAGA in the media, they don't resemble my many conservative friends who I talk to in real life. Their party is gone.

I agree. The Republican Party of the Reagans, Bushes, McCains, and Romneys is gone, at least for the time being. Trump has been very successful in purging it of anyone that isn't a loyalist. That's one of my hopes in getting rid of Trump, that it might return to some sense of sanity and provide us with a decent alternative to a party in the Democrats that I find just as unacceptable as the current crop of Republicans. There are good R candidates out there, Nikki Haley, Liz Cheney, Chris Christee, etc, that aren't from the MAGA branch.

[I-5]

I agree. The Republican Party of the Reagans, Bushes, McCains, and Romneys is gone, at least for the time being. Trump has been very successful in purging it of anyone that isn't a loyalist. That's one of my hopes in getting rid of Trump, that it might return to some sense of sanity and provide us with a decent alternative to a party in the Democrats that I find just as unacceptable as the current crop of Republicans. There are good R candidates out there, Nikki Haley, Liz Cheney, Chris Christee, etc, that aren't from the MAGA branch.

To be sure, there are many annoying characters on the democratic side that make me cringe, too. But even the most obnoxious ones I've seen do not advocate violence to others, or overthrowing the government should they lose, etc. It's that violent element that to me is a threat to us all. There is one commenter I've encountered in a youtube thread that just keeps repeating 'you'll see' over and over again when it comes to election day if things don't go his way. That's the MAGA element I'm talking about. I can handle obnoxious, but there is no place for threats, and that comes exlusiviely from MAGA fringes.

[River Dog]

I agree. The Republican Party of the Reagans, Bushes, McCains, and Romneys is gone, at least for the time being. Trump has been very successful in purging it of anyone that isn't a loyalist. That's one of my hopes in getting rid of Trump, that it might return to some sense of sanity and provide us with a decent alternative to a party in the Democrats that I find just as unacceptable as the current crop of Republicans. There are good R candidates out there, Nikki Haley, Liz Cheney, Chris Christee, etc, that aren't from the MAGA branch.

To be sure, there are many annoying characters on the democratic side that make me cringe, too. But even the most obnoxious ones I've seen do not advocate violence to others, or overthrowing the government should they lose, etc. It's that violent element that to me is a threat to us all. There is one commenter I've encountered in a youtube thread that just keeps repeating 'you'll see' over and over again when it comes to election day if things don't go his way. That's the MAGA element I'm talking about. I can handle obnoxious, but there is no place for threats, and that comes exlusiviely from MAGA fringes.

I don't disagree with you, and I'm not voting for any MAGA Republicans. My litmus test for them is if they are endorsed by Trump. If they are, then I'm not voting for them. Jerrod Sessler, running for Congress in my district, was endorsed by Trump so he won't be getting my vote.

My problem with the Democrats has little to do with personalities or personal behavior as are the problems I have with the MAGA Republicans. It's mostly fiscally oriented stuff, personal responsibility or lack thereof, their anti-business stances, law and order, etc, that I disagree with the Democratic approach on.

[Aseahawkfan]

I don't much stock in Project 2025. I understand politics well enough to know how this game works and don't fault people for endorsing Trump as it has been clearly shown not supporting Trump or really any party presidential candidate is career suicide or at least very damaging to your career. Dick Cheney was more dangerous than Trump in my opinion and LIz Cheney sees him as fine. Trump is annoying, but I don't see him as dangerous.

I think January 6th was just a very unique time period with the lockdowns and people unable to work thinking their futures were going down the drain and the government was forcing this on them, primarily the Democrats. I actually knew a girl that likely killed herself because of the lockdowns and how the government handled them because to many young people who had a lot of their lives tied up in school and achievement, that period felt apocalyptic for their futures. It hurt a lot of people badly who had their lives tied to an active life within our institutions, especially our young. It was a depressing and stressful time that ramped up suicide, depression, and bad behavior as locking an entire population down has proven to be a bad idea. The lockdown conditions are what caused January 6th rioting and I believe had those conditions not existed, then January 6th never happens. It was exacerbated by Trump's whining after his loss and perpetuation that the election was stolen, but it was not the primary cause. If people had been working and active with their lives, no one would have had the time to riot or the inclination. So that is not my concern with Trump. I do not think if he loses again the same or anywhere near the same reaction will occur. I think the extreme parts of the BLM protesting and riots were also caused by the lockdown. People with nothing to do but sit at home watching bad news or thinking their lives are over are more likely to find some cause to pursue that gets them out of the house or at least railing against who they think the problem is.

I do not like Trump for the blatant way he influences American voters using division and lies to manipulate, openly preying on people's fears and concerns with ludicrous claims, primarily about immigrants. That is his most tiresome rhetoric. Then coupled with the name calling and the rambling, unfocused attacks and it makes politics more tiresome than usual. He doesn't have the temperament for president or even the baseline moral consistency for a president. He's a salesman who thinks of everything as a deal he can manage and his ego is far too large to operate within a bicameral Democracy where you have to work with other politicians to get things done. He's a CEO used to ordering what he wants done and firing those that disobey, which he cannot do in a Democratic government.

I have issues with both parties. They are out of touch with the modern day. My feeling is the Republicans are stuck in their 80s Reagan heyday and the Democrats are stuck in their 60s hey day. We need a modern president who can advance the nation past these two time periods into a 2020 and beyond party that is going to address the issues of a more diverse, technologically advanced, and complex world and economy who isn't relying on stale 60s and 80s style political marketing that relies on identity politics, immigration, and bad economic policies with both parties that don't address the changing needs of the modern workforce.

[I-5]

I don't disagree with you, and I'm not voting for any MAGA Republicans. My litmus test for them is if they are endorsed by Trump. If they are, then I'm not voting for them. Jerrod Sessler, running for Congress in my district, was endorsed by Trump so he won't be getting my vote.

My problem with the Democrats has little to do with personalities or personal behavior as are the problems I have with the MAGA Republicans. It's mostly fiscally oriented stuff, personal responsibility or lack thereof, their anti-business stances, law and order, etc, that I disagree with the Democratic approach on.

To me, you’re not just voting for policiy, you’re also voting for leadership ie maturity, judgement, poise etc. This is why though I didn’t agree with Romney, I would have been more than fine with his leadership. He also knew to not shove his religious beliefs on his constituents.

[River Dog]

I don't disagree with you, and I'm not voting for any MAGA Republicans. My litmus test for them is if they are endorsed by Trump. If they are, then I'm not voting for them. Jerrod Sessler, running for Congress in my district, was endorsed by Trump so he won't be getting my vote.

My problem with the Democrats has little to do with personalities or personal behavior as are the problems I have with the MAGA Republicans. It's mostly fiscally oriented stuff, personal responsibility or lack thereof, their anti-business stances, law and order, etc, that I disagree with the Democratic approach on.

To me, you’re not just voting for policiy, you’re also voting for leadership ie maturity, judgement, poise etc. This is why though I didn’t agree with Romney, I would have been more than fine with his leadership. He also knew to not shove his religious beliefs on his constituents.

I agree with that comment, too. You have to weigh the two attributes against each other.

I also take a look at who is likely to control Congress. I don't want to see one party in complete control of both branches of government, especially if it happens to be the Democrats.

[Stream Hawk]

I agree with that comment, too. You have to weigh the two attributes against each other.

I also take a look at who is likely to control Congress. I don't want to see one party in complete control of both branches of government, especially if it happens to be the Democrats.

But you'd be OK with Republicans controlling both branches? Your rationale makes no sense. Republicans are MAGA now. And we all know who would control the executive branch.

[River Dog]

I agree with that comment, too. You have to weigh the two attributes against each other.

I also take a look at who is likely to control Congress. I don't want to see one party in complete control of both branches of government, especially if it happens to be the Democrats.

But you'd be OK with Republicans controlling both branches? Your rationale makes no sense. Republicans are MAGA now. And we all know who would control the executive branch.

I didn't say that. I said 'especially' the Democrats. That doesn't mean that I'd be "OK with R's controlling both branches".

[Stream Hawk]

I didn't say that. I said 'especially' the Democrats. That doesn't mean that I'd be "OK with R's controlling both branches".

I’m confused. You said “especially the Democrats”, which infers you’d prefer Republicans controlling over the Democrats.

[River Dog]

I didn't say that. I said 'especially' the Democrats. That doesn't mean that I'd be "OK with R's controlling both branches".

I’m confused. You said “especially the Democrats”, which infers you’d prefer Republicans controlling over the Democrats.

Well, let me put it this way: All things considered equal, I'd rather see the R's in control of the government than the D's. But the way the R's in the House behaved these past two years with such a slim majority that provided a handful of MAGA types like MTG and Matt Gaetz to dictate their terms, I would not want to see them in control of the entire government. But that is NOT to be interpreted that I prefer Democratic control. In this day and age, my preference is for a divided government.

[Stream Hawk]

I get it, you are a lifelong Republican. And you despise Trump and MAGA Republicans. Which we clearly agree on! But unfortunately, MAGAs have hijacked your party. I prefer common sense and a Democratic way of the world. While I hate paying excess taxes, some taxes are needed. I also think that the middle class should not be taxed so high - like they would be under Trump. Adam Kinzinger is a Republican I can get behind behind!

[Aseahawkfan]

I still don't know why we don't have a strong middle class party any more. Republicans have sold out to the wealthy. Democrats like to operate like a charity where the middle class pay most of the taxes for their badly run programs. Sure would be nice to have a strong middle and working class party getting tax cuts and building the institutions for the middle and working class who may not be rich, but don't look at themselves as poor either. They earn their place in this world and provide the majority of taxes for the government and provide the wealth through consumption for the wealthy. It seems to met he wealthy have enough money to take care of themselves and the poor and I mean truly poor who don't want to work or are engaged in negative behaviors are a waste of money. The middle and working class should be the place where a political party needs to strongly align and set things up for them to prosper. And not this handout rubbish. Middle and working class people like to earn their place in the world, not be given it, but it needs to be affordable. Middle and working class are getting squeezed by bad economic management and the wealthy have the power to make sure they don't pay for the bad economic management while the Democrats don't want to own up to their lousy economics and want to sell the poor and victim angle to get middle and working class people to pay more taxes.

Hell, middle and working class voters voted for 30 dollars tabs in Washington State. 30 dollars for tabs is not something a rich person cares about. Washington State Democrats gave us 30 dollar tabs we voted for, then added a bunch of other taxes they gave a different name to get the yearly tabs bill back up to what it was before and more. That's Democrat policy right there. Pure Democrat. Not helping the middle or working class and only giving you a subsistence hand out for the poor, then tacking on as many little taxes as they can the middle and working class pay for.

Damn, we need a third party that is for the middle and working class to get them tax cuts and better economics.

[River Dog]

I get it, you are a lifelong Republican. And you despise Trump and MAGA Republicans. Which we clearly agree on! But unfortunately, MAGAs have hijacked your party. I prefer common sense and a Democratic way of the world. While I hate paying excess taxes, some taxes are needed. I also think that the middle class should not be taxed so high - like they would be under Trump. Adam Kinzinger is a Republican I can get behind behind!

First off, not all Republicans are from the MAGA branch. My current rep in Congress, Dan Newhouse, is one of them, as is my preferred POTUS candidate, Nikki Haley.

Secondly, although I have voted mostly for Republicans up until 2016, I seldom voted a straight Republican ticket. I've voted for a Democratic governor for WA at least twice that I can think of as well as several in down ballot elections. I have never thought of the Republicans as being "my party."" I consider myself a fiscal conservative and social moderate. I can be had.

[River Dog]

I still don't know why we don't have a strong middle class party any more. Republicans have sold out to the wealthy. Democrats like to operate like a charity where the middle class pay most of the taxes for their badly run programs. Sure would be nice to have a strong middle and working class party getting tax cuts and building the institutions for the middle and working class who may not be rich, but don't look at themselves as poor either. They earn their place in this world and provide the majority of taxes for the government and provide the wealth through consumption for the wealthy. It seems to met he wealthy have enough money to take care of themselves and the poor and I mean truly poor who don't want to work or are engaged in negative behaviors are a waste of money. The middle and working class should be the place where a political party needs to strongly align and set things up for them to prosper. And not this handout rubbish. Middle and working class people like to earn their place in the world, not be given it, but it needs to be affordable. Middle and working class are getting squeezed by bad economic management and the wealthy have the power to make sure they don't pay for the bad economic management while the Democrats don't want to own up to their lousy economics and want to sell the poor and victim angle to get middle and working class people to pay more taxes.

Hell, middle and working class voters voted for 30 dollars tabs in Washington State. 30 dollars for tabs is not something a rich person cares about. Washington State Democrats gave us 30 dollar tabs we voted for, then added a bunch of other taxes they gave a different name to get the yearly tabs bill back up to what it was before and more. That's Democrat policy right there. Pure Democrat. Not helping the middle or working class and only giving you a subsistence hand out for the poor, then tacking on as many little taxes as they can the middle and working class pay for.

Damn, we need a third party that is for the middle and working class to get them tax cuts and better economics.

Dems and libs love to complain about Big Oil raking in profits off a gallon of gas and attribute inflation to their greed while overlooking the fact that the State of Washington alone takes in 3-4 times Big Oil's profit from a gallon of gas in the form of their gas tax and carbon tax.

[I-5]

....middle class pay most of the taxes for their badly run programs

And what is wrong exactly with this statement? What if the programs are well-run? Meanwhile, the rich find ways to not pay taxes but reap lots of benefits from being in the US.

[River Dog]

....middle class pay most of the taxes for their badly run programs

And what is wrong exactly with this statement? What if the programs are well-run? Meanwhile, the rich find ways to not pay taxes but reap lots of benefits from being in the US.

It's a radical idea and will never come to be, but there have been proposals to change our current taxation system from income-based to consumption-based in the form of a national retail sales tax. You would not pay any personal federal income tax, no SS or Medicare tax, and would get 100% of your paycheck less employer and state deductions. The proposals I've heard entail giving every man, woman, and child a fixed amount per month to pay for food and drugs, something like $100/person.

A pure national retail sales tax would represent a sharp break from the current tax system, shifting the tax base from income to consumption. Rates would be flat; no goods or services would be exempted or favored; and tax administration, enforcement, and points of collection would be radically altered. In practice, those retail sales taxes that do exist in the United States at the state and local level exempt most services and many goods, including in most of them food sold for home consumption.

It would involve repealing the 16th Amendment, the one that established a federal income tax, and would eliminate the IRS. My understanding was that it would have to be at around 20% in order for it to be revenue neutral.

I'm not necessarily advocating it, but it's an interesting thought. One of the things that I don't like about our country is this class warfare that some people like to engage in, as if anyone who's worth over $1m is an inherently evil person, the root cause of all the world's problems and that must be punished for their success in life. Perhaps changing to a consumption tax would change that way of thinking.

[Aseahawkfan]

And what is wrong exactly with this statement? What if the programs are well-run? Meanwhile, the rich find ways to not pay taxes but reap lots of benefits from being in the US.

The majority are not well run. Exactly, the rich do, which is why the Middle Class need programs and tax benefits set up for them. Not subsistence poor program or tax incentives for the rich.

Why don't you explain why in Blue States the wealth gap is so high if the Democrats tax incentives and programs aren't set up for the rich as well? Why in Washington State and California are the rich and upper middle class rising as they purchase more property and gain more wealth while the working and lower middle class get subsistence payments while they get priced out of property ownership while still paying lots of high taxes on things like gas and energy why the wealthy and upper middle class force expensive agendas on them like clean energy where they get to drive expensive Teslas that the working and middle class can't afford? You ever do the math on Democratic policies and politics effect on the middle class?

There is also the excessive immigration leading to larger labor pools that create excess labor supply to keep wages low. It's one of the reasons why I don't trust the Republicans. To me it feels like both parties are run by the same people playing us for fools. The Republican side rails against immigration in an easily dismissed manner due to racism. The left pretends they love immigrants for all the diversity they bring. But no one talks about immigration's impact on wages or how a labor supply is subject to the same supply-demand of any other product or service. Excess labor supply reduces wages which primarily benefits companies by creating a larger labor pool so does high tech H1B visa programs that allow big tech to access labor pools in other countries when recruiting and sponsor and bring them in on H1B visa programs which once again increases the supply of labor which puts downward pressure on wages.

Then the media conveniently puts out articles saying "We're short on labor" while the media also puts out articles claiming "Some people can't a find a job." So how do we know which one is true? How exactly do we truly determine if some policy by either party is truly impacting the economy? By understanding how economics works including labor supply and demand. If we have a shortage of labor in a particular area of the economy, rather than importing via immigration we should be providing training programs and educational support for people within America that want to access those jobs. But Big Business prefers to import from around the world which Democrats support and Republicans pretend to not support while companies supportive of both parties utilize an international labor pool of combined immigration, outsourcing, and automation to put downward pressure on wages through manipulation of the labor supply.

If you analyze the economics of the Democrats, it's a pure illusion that they don't benefit the business, investing, and upper class, though they do have a socialist arm led by people like AOC that would upend the traditional business first Democrats like Pelosi and Schumer if they ever get sufficient power to do so.

There are two parties that support business using slightly different methodologies with a few more scraps thrown to the middle and working class in different ways. Democrats generally work through social programs and spending for job generation and the Republicans work through tax reductions and incentives to business under the guise of job generation. Both are not great for middle class workers long-term.

One big example is who made Elon Musk? Democrats or Republicans? Who helped Elon the most build Tesla into a multibillion dollar company benefitting from government tax breaks on EVs that allowed Elon to scale Tesla into the biggest EV maker in the world besides one Chinese company? Who allowed that? It wasn't Republicans. It was Democrats that build up Elon Musk. They also helped tons of clean energy companies create massive wealth that Democrats like good old Nancy Pelosi conveniently invested in, oh I forgot, just her husband did it. My bad.

That is why I don't care for either party or their followers. Democrats overlooked all the bad policy by that party that has hurt the middle and working class over the years because they don't understand the bad economics of it.

Fact is we need some middle class economists not bought and paid for by each party and not socialist Marxist trying to pretend that system works, but real focused on getting the middle and working class back to higher wages, more ownership of their labor, and more portable health insurance and an economic environment that isn't using them as either consumption sponges for business or tax sponges for an overly large government.