Joe Biden is now officially the 46th President of the United States of America

[Foxi4]

And in terms of the tax cuts, how the hell would basically just taxing big corporations MORE result in consumers paying for it, figuratively or literally? That's... not how that works.

It's exactly how it works - the cost, most times, is offset by consumers paying a little extra on top of what they're used to. A corporation has a certain level of expected operating income, and if it falls behind on that target, the consumer will pick up the slack. The same rule of thumb applied to Trump's tarrifs against China - since the exemption for consumer goods is expired and hasn't been renewed, American consumers can expect to pay up to 25% more for their graphics cards, SSD's and more.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/gpu-tariff-asus-priceincrease

The pocket book will balance out, don't worry - the government introducing a new artificial cost to doing business must necessarily result in a price adjustment, that *is* how it works.

 

[Plasmaster09]

It's exactly how it works - the cost, most times, is offset by consumers paying a little extra on top of what they're used to. A corporation has a certain level of expected operating income, and if it falls behind on that target, the consumer will pick up the slack. The same rule of thumb applied to Trump's tarrifs against China - since the exemption for consumer goods is expired and hasn't been renewed, consumers can expect to pay up to 25% more for their graphics cards, SSD's and more.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/gpu-tariff-asus-priceincrease

The pocket book will balance out, don't worry - the government introducing a new artificial cost to doing business must necessarily result in a price adjustment, that *is* how it works.

Oh, that bit's what you mean. (I was afraid you meant some kind of bizarre converse to the trickledown argument.)
But to be fair... there are costs to progress. (Same reason why at some point they'll have to actually RAISE taxes a significant bit- and alter things so that the proportions actually make a lick of sense relative to people's income instead of acting like an evil reverse Robin Hood.)

 

[Xzi]

A corporation has a certain level of expected operating income, and if it falls behind on that target, the consumer will pick up the slack.

Only in America can this kind of Stockholm Syndrome exist, it's the same excuse given whenever we talk about raising the minimum wage. Meanwhile, France pays fast food workers between $20 and $22 an hour, and their burgers cost about $0.20 more than ours. As long as there's any amount of competition present in a given industry, the threat of massively inflated prices resulting from higher taxes is an empty one.

 

[0x3000027E]

The muslim ban was an interesting one, possibly could have been justified but wasn't really from what I saw (Arab spring and major fallout thereof was some 4 years earlier but ramping back up, almost as though knocking over governments and putting nothing in its place doesn't work so well). Restricting Mexicans seemed reasonable, illegal immigration having a demonstrable effect upon various labour markets (possibly crime but that is less of one), even if wall building is a silly idea. The general trend has been to make it harder for many years now as well.

What rights would I have lost or gained under Trump had I been there?
Ditto Obama?
Equally if they are different what could I have reasonably attributed to the then current el presidente as much as other things.
Despite threats on free speech from all sides it is mostly what it was 10 years ago.
Police can still steal my money/items, claim it was for criminal things and make me sue to get it back, and demonstrably still do make any number of very dubious calls there. Neither furthered nor ended.
Police in general still seem about as skull cracking as US ones ever were, though that is arguably a local/state matter for much of that. Not my idea of a good time but about what I would expect.
If I care about guns then things might well be more restrictive now than they were, and in arguably pointless ways.
Getting divorced is as much a raw deal today as was back in the 90s. The gay alphabet soup lot, something of a cause celebre in recent years, also seem to be able to enjoy marriage and not being kicked out of the job market/life in general and have done for a while now (no change under him anyway). Ditto skin colour if you go in for that one. The poor are pretty hard done by but always have been really, and are in most places.

Any major services or milestones and end results thereof?
Health and net insurance (never mind effective insurance) might be a fun one to ponder.
Infrastructure is always crumbling and everybody knows someone that hit a pot hole. Mostly seems to be new bridges that are collapsing though.

Does the economic outlook via various means* look better for [age ranges] as of last year (and this if you want to count this little pandemic business then go that as well).

*salary to home cost ratio, home availability, savings, debt utilisation (and nature thereof -- US student loans are unpleasant but have not really changed in character in a long time), education level attained, average salary (probably inflation adjusted), retirement and nature thereof, homelessness and nature thereof, unemployment trends (general and underemployment), child poverty... there are plenty to look at. The projected future trends for many of those don't look too pretty, however I am not sure I am inclined to point at presidential meddling on any count for those (student loans being backed rather than means tested and results based... yeah, home loans and bail outs... yeah).

You say his mishandling of the pandemic is something to note. Do go on. What could he have done (and governors, all these states having their own nice healthcare infrastructure and universities of their own to tap after all, could not have done -- most states seem to be doing their own thing quite happily for some time now) or not done that would have made all the difference or just a really notable one? I can't say it was a model to follow but I doubt the US ever could have been (infrastructure never centralised, standardised, no scope to mobilise a force like there is for all sorts of things for hotspots...) and not really that bad as a general trend.

Are my consumer rights really any better or worse than they were in 2008? Few places had cases in their local supreme courts to iron out some of the kinks and some finally wound their way up to the main supreme court (that toner refills one being a fun one). Seeing fewer bills really that done much of anything here.
Most big companies just as inclined to not respect rights and me as a consumer as they ever were. Said companies (and ones looking to rise up) often mired in red tape as well (though that is just as commonly from local/state levels).

Am I likely to find my home buried under a mound of toxic sludge or breathe smog on the way to work where I was not before?


At no point during the last 15 or so years have I wanted to live in the US (I like Europe much more), content enough to visit for long periods though without feeling like I was wading into a fallen country or warzone. Never really felt like it was a country in ascendency either. By similar token for any of those has any country massively eclipsed the US in possibly anything other than healthcare (the third rate nature of that being a long standing cause of amusement for most of the rest of the world) that the US could have done if they had wanted, or indeed something that is fairly obvious the US could have done that would have made things 10000 times better.

To that end this is the new sound, same as the old sound. Last el presidente was an unlikeable arsehole and surrounded by gaping arseholes, but that is just called being a politician and something you get to work with. New one looks no different, and that is without the lack of power available in the role (both generally and with the current setup being as generally evenly matched as it is) and need to spin many plates at once.

A bit of a pessimist take for my taste, but I do enjoy what you wrote here.

 

[Blaze163]

My hopes for this new administration are a return of common sense and decency, a serious push to get the virus under control, working towards that unity he promised you all, and for the angry blue haired land whales of Tumblr to shut up about equality now that an African/Asian American woman is VP. All that moaning is stopping the ironing getting done, ladies.

I'm joking about that last part. Should be obvious, but in these trying times you can never be too careful so best I spell it out for the perma-offended humour impaired types.

In all seriousness though, I just hope we can return to times where people actually agreed on basic shit. Like the planet not being flat. Or vaccines working. The last few years I've seen people deeper in angry desperate denial than Yu Yevon and that's just not good for anyone. Biden talked about unity and I agree that's what America, nay the world at large, needs now. We'll never get anywhere as a species if we're fighting over minutia, especially things that were already settled (you can literally see the curvature of the Earth, it's not up for discussion, case closed, get over it). Division is pointless, there's always going to be someone with answers or resources or whatever that you need or want, and it's only by co-operating that we gain access to those things we need. You'll never be a one man army dominating the whole planet no matter how hard you try, so why try at all? The Trump mentality of 'F everyone else, I'm all that matters' is ultimately self defeating so why support it? Because it makes you feel better about your pathetic little lives? Try actually BEING better instead of just FEELING better, you'd be amazed at the results.

 

[Foxi4]

Oh, that bit's what you mean. (I was afraid you meant some kind of bizarre converse to the trickledown argument.)
But to be fair... there are costs to progress. (Same reason why at some point they'll have to actually RAISE taxes a significant bit- and alter things so that the proportions actually make a lick of sense relative to people's income instead of acting like an evil reverse Robin Hood.)

That's the definition of a trickle down effect - the cost of the tax "trickles down" on the consumer. Of course you're instead referring to supply-side economics, the correct term that was later boiled down to "trickle down economics" by more liberal-minded politicians and economists who aren't as good with numbers or foresight as their peers, but no, that's not what I was talking about.

 

[Luckkill4u]

With Biden's and Trudeau's view on the 'Great Reset', I'm honestly worried for the future and our freedoms.

 

[omgcat]

It's exactly how it works - the cost, most times, is offset by consumers paying a little extra on top of what they're used to. A corporation has a certain level of expected operating income, and if it falls behind on that target, the consumer will pick up the slack. The same rule of thumb applied to Trump's tarrifs against China - since the exemption for consumer goods is expired and hasn't been renewed, American consumers can expect to pay up to 25% more for their graphics cards, SSD's and more.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/gpu-tariff-asus-priceincrease

The pocket book will balance out, don't worry - the government introducing a new artificial cost to doing business must necessarily result in a price adjustment, that *is* how it works.

yup, trump got us with one more fuck you before he left.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_tariffs#Chinese_products

Trump said the tariffs are "paid for mostly by China, by the way, not by us." Economic analysts concluded this was an incorrect assertion as American businesses and consumers ultimately pay the tariffs as real-world examples of tariffs working as intended are rare, and consumers of the tariff-levying country are the primary victims of tariffs, by having to pay higher prices. "It is inaccurate to say that countries pay tariffs on commercial and consumer goods—it is the buyers and sellers that bear the costs," said Ross Burkhart, a Boise State University political scientist. "Purchasers pay the tariff when they buy popular products. Sellers lose market share when their products get priced out of markets,"

anyone who wants to be mad at the chinese tariffs driving up GPU prices and more can go hunt down trump.

 

[Foxi4]

yup, trump got us with one more fuck you before he left.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_tariffs#Chinese_products

Trump said the tariffs are "paid for mostly by China, by the way, not by us." Economic analysts concluded this was an incorrect assertion as American businesses and consumers ultimately pay the tariffs as real-world examples of tariffs working as intended are rare, and consumers of the tariff-levying country are the primary victims of tariffs, by having to pay higher prices. "It is inaccurate to say that countries pay tariffs on commercial and consumer goods—it is the buyers and sellers that bear the costs," said Ross Burkhart, a Boise State University political scientist. "Purchasers pay the tariff when they buy popular products. Sellers lose market share when their products get priced out of markets,"

These tarrifs were one of the things I disagreed with Trump on, the consumers were always going to be on the short end of that stick. There's really no way to enact a policy like that without affecting the market using just pen and paper. The expectation was that they would force China to sit down at the negotiations table and provide better footing, but without widespread support in the House it had no chance of ever working as intended.

 

[SonowRaevius]

Now to see if and hope he does good for the country or not.

If not he can fuck right off with Trump too.

A good leader does and should do right by their people or they get the boot.

 

[g00s3y]

A better president in less than 24 hours than Trump was in 4 years...

 

[FAST6191]

My hopes for this new administration are a return of common sense and decency, a serious push to get the virus under control, working towards that unity he promised you all, and for the angry blue haired land whales of Tumblr to shut up about equality now that an African/Asian American woman is VP. All that moaning is stopping the ironing getting done, ladies.

I'm joking about that last part. Should be obvious, but in these trying times you can never be too careful so best I spell it out for the perma-offended humour impaired types.

In all seriousness though, I just hope we can return to times where people actually agreed on basic shit. Like the planet not being flat. Or vaccines working. The last few years I've seen people deeper in angry desperate denial than Yu Yevon and that's just not good for anyone. Biden talked about unity and I agree that's what America, nay the world at large, needs now. We'll never get anywhere as a species if we're fighting over minutia, especially things that were already settled (you can literally see the curvature of the Earth, it's not up for discussion, case closed, get over it). Division is pointless, there's always going to be someone with answers or resources or whatever that you need or want, and it's only by co-operating that we gain access to those things we need. You'll never be a one man army dominating the whole planet no matter how hard you try, so why try at all? The Trump mentality of 'F everyone else, I'm all that matters' is ultimately self defeating so why support it? Because it makes you feel better about your pathetic little lives? Try actually BEING better instead of just FEELING better, you'd be amazed at the results.

Was the last however long a departure from some kind of idyllic land of decency and common sense? A time wherein new laws and revisions to old ones were debated on their practical and ethical merits, as opposed to scratch my back and I scratch yours whilst smearing your opponents (but not so much that you can't get them on side if you need them in a few months)? Because I was there for however many years before and I don't recall such a time, and reading my history books says there was never such a time.

Vaccine denial... well arguably since inoculation

More recently well since the whole MMR nonsense but plenty of others. Doubt it will go away any time soon which is a pity.

On flat earthers. Do you not recognise an obvious acceptable target? Nobody takes them seriously and they have no power which is why you get to make fun of them and makes for a nice distraction.

As for moaning about equality then you have not been paying attention to things -- it is the notion that you might be being called a phobist that gets people to jump. There will always be another hurdle to overcome, stat to be made equal (maybe even overrepresented to make up for past inequalities), diversity officer/department in your company to form... because apparently the world should repeat at every level despite demonstrable differences in biology, psychology and the like. Far too useful a tool to give up on that one. Also I take it you missed the gendered words thing in the House of Representatives (not a ban as some would have you understand it, about as silly from where I sit).
Though depending upon how good they are at maths (debatable if maths now needs to be decolonialised) then they might turn inwards to try to root out the vestiges of the 90s corporate democrats to be replaced with some nice "democratic socialist" types, maybe with it being mirrored in the US right wing as the MAGA set, possibly with a boost from some of the libertarians with the actual skills* booted out of their little camp, take on the remains of the Reagan evangelist religious right (who seldom have been seen actually do any kind of conservative policy as much as copy and paste democrat ones from 20 years earlier). If that scenario does come to pass over the coming years... then something interesting might have happened. I don't know when that lot of changes will happen (and something will) or if it will happen simultaneously.

*whether I agree with the Mises Institute or not is a different matter but them and those like them being shuffled out of libertarian circles to become free agents should probably scare someone, or excite someone -- whatever they are they are not people I take lightly, unlike most politicos which are short term tools of self interest.

 

[Valwinz]

>NEW - Joe Biden's inauguration video is so unpopular that it is now "unlisted" on the White House's YouTube account.
lol but he is more popular than obama i was told

 

[Plasmaster09]

That's the definition of a trickle down effect - the cost of the tax "trickles down" on the consumer. Of course you're instead referring to supply-side economics, the correct term that was later boiled down to "trickle down economics" by more liberal-minded politicians and economists who aren't as good with numbers or foresight as their peers, but no, that's not what I was talking about.

...what
you... I... WHAT
supply-side basically just amounts to "make the person that's either already rich or already has control over the situation economically... richer or with more control, and just kinda wait for things to pool downward"
it would make sense in theory if not for one pivotal flaw: it assumes that people are actually going to use and circulate all of that extra undeserved money they're given or modify things so that it ends up circulating- as it turns out, people aren't exactly charitable by default
acting like we "aren't good with numbers" because we look at an approach that gives money to the rich or power to the powerful and go "what the fuck" isn't just condescending and dismissive, it's also pretty damn stupid

 

[Lacius]

>NEW - Joe Biden's inauguration video is so unpopular that it is now "unlisted" on the White House's YouTube account.
lol but he is more popular than obama i was told

The inauguration video got approximately 11 million views on the official inaugural committee YouTube page. It got approximately 9 million views on the CNBC YouTube page. Etc. What are you blathering on about?

 

[Foxi4]

...what
you... I... WHAT
supply-side basically just amounts to "make the person that's either already rich or already has control over the situation economically... richer or with more control, and just kinda wait for things to pool downward"
it would make sense in theory if not for one pivotal flaw: it assumes that people are actually going to use and circulate all of that extra undeserved money they're given or modify things so that it ends up circulating- as it turns out, people aren't exactly charitable by default
acting like we "aren't good with numbers" because we look at an approach that gives money to the rich or power to the powerful and go "what the fuck" isn't just condescending and dismissive, it's also pretty damn stupid

It's not really a matter of opinion, it's a matter of finding the spot on the Laffer Curve that generates the most growth while maintaining maximum tax revenues. All of that talk about power dynamics is silly populism, what actually matters is how much tax revenues you generate with your policy and does it stun growth or not. There's a golden mean here, somewhere between 0% and 100%, the two extremes where you get $0 into the treasury. If you "tax the rich" X% less, but by doing so allow them to generate significantly more revenue (on which they're taxed, mind), they actually end up paying *more* into the pot overall while growing their business at the same time. Tax revenues steadily increased over time under Trump *in spite of* the tax cuts due to rapid economic growth, there's plenty receipts for that. The reason why I say people opposed to the idea are not good with numbers is because they look at the percentage and think "lower number bad". No, not necessarily. There's a point of diminishing returns, yes, but you have to look at the actual results to make a judgement. The deficit ballooned not because the tax cuts were ineffective, but because the spending ballooned also, and in many areas it was stupid spending.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-tax-cuts-federal-revenues-deficits/

The revenues gained another 4% in 2019, mind, so it wasn't just a chance result. Now, of course critics will say that by doing so the tax revenues are "lower in relation to the GDP", which does happen, but that's short-sighted. To illustrate, having someone pay 10% on $1000 ($100) is better than having them pay 20% on $500 (also $100). The treasury gets the same amount to fuel the budget anyway, but in the former scenario the entrepreneur has a remainder of $900 to operate whereas in the latter only $400 - you want to enable rapid growth like that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

That's all econ talk though, has nothing to do with Biden. The best he can do is leave the current levels alone, that's not how you patch the budget - you patch the budget by reducing needless spending. Of course that's not going to happen, so it doesn't matter.

 

[Valwinz]

reminder 25000 troops

 

[Sicklyboy]

reminder 25000 troops

Thank you. What a profound statement. I'm almost able to decipher what the hell your point is.

 

[omgcat]

reminder 25000 troops

yeah, cause 5 people died and literal shit was smeared on the wall of congress 2 weeks ago today. The FBI and NSA warned of possible attacks and defense was deployed. think for a moment please. how are people shocked when troops are deployed in response to armed insurrection? like people cannot be this stupid.

hell, the republicans are claiming trump incited the insurrection by feeding people lies.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mcc...apitol-assault-fed-lies-mob/story?id=75349374

 

[Plasmaster09]

yeah, cause 5 people died and literal shit was smeared on the wall of congress 2 weeks ago today. The FBI and NSA warned of possible attacks and defense was deployed. think for a moment please. how are people shocked when troops are deployed in response to armed insurrection? like people cannot be this stupid.

I hate to thread-drag, but as I said previously...
The Trumpers attempted a fucking coup two weeks ago. Do I need to spell it out any clearer for these people exactly why security is so high?
I have a feeling that you too wish the answer was no... but there's no limit on stupidity.