Why Biden/Harris will win

[homersapien 11,386]

This:

Trump stokes fear. Biden and Harris can raise hope.

Opinion by Editorial Board

August 15, 2020 at 8:00 a.m. EDT

WHEN ALL the arguments between candidates are over, and voters have processed them, the emotions kick in. The decisive ones are fear and hope. At this profoundly raw, emotional moment in American history, the president of the United States has staked his future — and, therefore, the country’s — on fear. He has little or nothing to show in the way of tangible accomplishments. What would have been his strongest claim to success, a robust U.S. economy, has disappeared in large part due to his mismanagement of a pandemic. He seeks reelection through stoking fear and hostility toward a long list of enemies — racial minorities, immigrants, criminals, other countries and the Democratic opposition itself. In other words, he is doubling down on the strategy that got him elected in the first place.

It is vitally important to the country’s future that this not succeed. Therefore, it matters not only what President Trump’s opponents advocate; it also matters how they advocate it. The attitude and approach they project may be a lot more important than policy specifics of their campaign, because in the final analysis this is not just a campaign to fight the pandemic, salvage the economy, restore the U.S. position in the world or end inaction on climate change — though it is all of those things. It is a campaign to rescue American democracy from a toxic form of leadership that has badly damaged our political culture and might irrevocably harm it if Mr. Trump has another four years.

If we had to name the one thing the United States most needs, and that Democrats Joe Biden and Kamala D. Harris must convincingly offer, it would be confidence. People need confidence that government will address the pandemic rationally. They need confidence that it will manage the economy according to sound theory and objective data. They need confidence, above all, that the men and women in the executive branch are operating for the public interest, and in good faith.

A credible promise to restore confidence in America’s democratic institutions might do more to inspire a wide electoral coalition, and to gain a mandate for governing in 2021, than all the five-point policy proposals in the world. If Democrats need an example of how important optimism is to campaigning amid crisis, they need only review the history of Ronald Reagan’s successful run in 1980. One need not agree with everything Reagan stood for — we don’t — to acknowledge the power of his confident, optimistic message amid multiple economic, energy and foreign policy challenges.

Signs are that Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris understand this. Mr. Biden launched his campaign on a theme of national unity, in contrast to the horrific violence of Charlottesville and Mr. Trump’s divisive response to it. Ms. Harris noted in her first appearance as Mr. Biden’s running mate that “America is crying out for leadership.” Mr. Trump will relentlessly counterattack with insults and negativity of all kinds, untethered to truth or reality. The Democratic ticket must defend itself without getting bogged down in verbal trench warfare. The case against Mr. Trump makes itself, and the 50-plus percent of voters who disapprove of his performance don’t need persuading. There is a broad majority to be rallied for a different kind of politics. Raising hopes rather than fueling fears, Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris can assemble it.

[SocialCircle 570]

10 hours ago, homersapien said:

This:

Trump stokes fear. Biden and Harris can raise hope.

Opinion by Editorial Board

August 15, 2020 at 8:00 a.m. EDT

WHEN ALL the arguments between candidates are over, and voters have processed them, the emotions kick in. The decisive ones are fear and hope. At this profoundly raw, emotional moment in American history, the president of the United States has staked his future — and, therefore, the country’s — on fear. He has little or nothing to show in the way of tangible accomplishments. What would have been his strongest claim to success, a robust U.S. economy, has disappeared in large part due to his mismanagement of a pandemic. He seeks reelection through stoking fear and hostility toward a long list of enemies — racial minorities, immigrants, criminals, other countries and the Democratic opposition itself. In other words, he is doubling down on the strategy that got him elected in the first place.

It is vitally important to the country’s future that this not succeed. Therefore, it matters not only what President Trump’s opponents advocate; it also matters how they advocate it. The attitude and approach they project may be a lot more important than policy specifics of their campaign, because in the final analysis this is not just a campaign to fight the pandemic, salvage the economy, restore the U.S. position in the world or end inaction on climate change — though it is all of those things. It is a campaign to rescue American democracy from a toxic form of leadership that has badly damaged our political culture and might irrevocably harm it if Mr. Trump has another four years.

If we had to name the one thing the United States most needs, and that Democrats Joe Biden and Kamala D. Harris must convincingly offer, it would be confidence. People need confidence that government will address the pandemic rationally. They need confidence that it will manage the economy according to sound theory and objective data. They need confidence, above all, that the men and women in the executive branch are operating for the public interest, and in good faith.

A credible promise to restore confidence in America’s democratic institutions might do more to inspire a wide electoral coalition, and to gain a mandate for governing in 2021, than all the five-point policy proposals in the world. If Democrats need an example of how important optimism is to campaigning amid crisis, they need only review the history of Ronald Reagan’s successful run in 1980. One need not agree with everything Reagan stood for — we don’t — to acknowledge the power of his confident, optimistic message amid multiple economic, energy and foreign policy challenges.

Signs are that Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris understand this. Mr. Biden launched his campaign on a theme of national unity, in contrast to the horrific violence of Charlottesville and Mr. Trump’s divisive response to it. Ms. Harris noted in her first appearance as Mr. Biden’s running mate that “America is crying out for leadership.” Mr. Trump will relentlessly counterattack with insults and negativity of all kinds, untethered to truth or reality. The Democratic ticket must defend itself without getting bogged down in verbal trench warfare. The case against Mr. Trump makes itself, and the 50-plus percent of voters who disapprove of his performance don’t need persuading. There is a broad majority to be rallied for a different kind of politics. Raising hopes rather than fueling fears, Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris can assemble it.

Any reasonable person couldn’t get past the first paragraph without dismissing this opinion. 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

22 hours ago, SocialCircle said:

Any reasonable person couldn’t get past the first paragraph without dismissing this opinion. 

When discussing the fact that there's 40+% of voters in this country who've watched the last four years and will still cast one for Trump, I think we've already established that "reasonable" isn't deal breaker anymore.  

[johnnyAU 3,633]

Biden/Harris don't represent hope, they represent desperation. 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

2 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

Biden/Harris don't represent hope, they represent desperation. 

Four years under an incompetent, unstable, egotistical nut in the White House tends to do that.

[Mikey 16,615]

On 8/17/2020 at 6:03 AM, johnnyAU said:

Biden/Harris don't represent hope, they represent desperation. 

To me, they represent oppression. Big Government control of everything. For starters, they favor the Green New Deal, which would control everything down to needing a permit before deciding which trees could be harvested to make pencils. The list of the controls of personal decisions that would result from electing them is endless.

[homersapien 11,386]

26 minutes ago, Mikey said:

To me, they represent oppression. Big Government control of everything. For starters, they favor the Green New Deal, which would control everything down to needing a permit before deciding which trees could be harvested to make pencils. The list of the controls of personal decisions that would result from electing them is endless.

I'll bet the voices in your head told you that. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, Mikey said:

To me, they represent oppression. Big Government control of everything. For starters, they favor the Green New Deal, which would control everything down to needing a permit before deciding which trees could be harvested to make pencils. The list of the controls of personal decisions that would result from electing them is endless.

Complains about "Big Government".  Ignores that Republicans spend more than we take in on unbelievable scales over the last 40 years.  Tell me again which party is the one that favors a bigger government?

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/jul/29/tweets/republican-presidents-democrats-contribute-deficit/

[SocialCircle 570]

3 hours ago, Mikey said:

To me, they represent oppression. Big Government control of everything. For starters, they favor the Green New Deal, which would control everything down to needing a permit before deciding which trees could be harvested to make pencils. The list of the controls of personal decisions that would result from electing them is endless.

The absolutely represent a top down approach. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, SocialCircle said:

The absolutely represent a top down approach. 

Similar to the concept of trickle down economics, right?

[SocialCircle 570]

14 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Similar to the concept of trickle down economics, right?

This is exactly the opposite. You see the owner of a company should make more than the people their company employs. Meanwhile, the government shouldn’t own the people (at least not in this country). 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

33 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

This is exactly the opposite. You see the owner of a company should make more than the people their company employs. Meanwhile, the government shouldn’t own the people (at least not in this country). 

No one is arguing that the owner shouldn't make more.  The argument for trickle down economics was that it would be a top down model and the lower levels would all benefit with bigger salaries as revenues and profits rose.  Of course, that's never worked and it's been shown (repeatedly) that ownership just keeps larger a larger share of the profit.

Point being that if you don't like a top down approach from government, you shouldn't like it for an economic policy either when it's quite similar.

[SocialCircle 570]

22 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

No one is arguing that the owner shouldn't make more.  The argument for trickle down economics was that it would be a top down model and the lower levels would all benefit with bigger salaries as revenues and profits rose.  Of course, that's never worked and it's been shown (repeatedly) that ownership just keeps larger a larger share of the profit.

Point being that if you don't like a top down approach from government, you shouldn't like it for an economic policy either when it's quite similar.

It does absolutely work for the company I work for and for every company I have been employed by in my career. The more we make every year as a company.....the more of a raise I get and the more my bonus is as well. The point is you don't have a point. There is nothing similar about it.  

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

25 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

It does absolutely work for the company I work for and for every company I have been employed by in my career. The more we make every year as a company.....the more of a raise I get and the more my bonus is as well. The point is you don't have a point. There is nothing similar about it.  

You should really look at history and past your small little world.  May learn a thing or two.

40 years of evidence with that policy being pushed by Reagan, Bush, and others on the right has shown that no, the bottom side of the workforce is in fact not becoming wealthier.  Thus why you have such a large income gap, the likes of which haven't been seen in this country since the turn of the 19th into the 20th century.  In fact, when adjusted for inflation, the American worker is in the same basic position they were 40 years ago.  Why?  Because owners and executives are keeping more, not distributing more to their workforce.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

 

So again I say, if you're for that economic policy from your government, then you have no room to complain about a top-down governing approach.

[homersapien 11,386]

59 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

It does absolutely work for the company I work for and for every company I have been employed by in my career. The more we make every year as a company.....the more of a raise I get and the more my bonus is as well. The point is you don't have a point. There is nothing similar about it.  

That's totally unrelated to trickle down economic theory, which has nothing to do with productivity bonuses.

The more relevant questions are did your boss give you a raise because he got a big tax break?  Did he hire more people because he got a big tax break?

You obviously don't understand what trickle down economics theory is.

[homersapien 11,386]

20 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

You should really look at history and past your small little world.  May learn a thing or two.

40 years of evidence with that policy being pushed by Reagan, Bush, and others on the right has shown that no, the bottom side of the workforce is in fact not becoming wealthier.  Thus why you have such a large income gap, the likes of which haven't been seen in this country since the turn of the 19th into the 20th century.  In fact, when adjusted for inflation, the American worker is in the same basic position they were 40 years ago.  Why?  Because owners and executives are keeping more, not distributing more to their workforce.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

 

So again I say, if you're for that economic policy from your government, then you have no room to complain about a top-down governing approach.

https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/

CEO compensation has grown 940% since 1978

Typical worker compensation has risen only 12% during that time

Under 'trickle down' economic policies, guess who gets the tax cuts?

[SocialCircle 570]

13 minutes ago, homersapien said:

That's totally unrelated to trickle down economic theory, which has nothing to do with productivity bonuses.

The more relevant questions are did your boss give you a raise because he got a big tax break?  Did he hire more people because he got a big tax break?

You obviously don't understand what trickle down economics theory is.

The answer is yes. The more money we make, the more successful (financially) we all are in our company. Our bonuses are based on our bottom-line. 

[SocialCircle 570]

43 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

You should really look at history and past your small little world.  May learn a thing or two.

40 years of evidence with that policy being pushed by Reagan, Bush, and others on the right has shown that no, the bottom side of the workforce is in fact not becoming wealthier.  Thus why you have such a large income gap, the likes of which haven't been seen in this country since the turn of the 19th into the 20th century.  In fact, when adjusted for inflation, the American worker is in the same basic position they were 40 years ago.  Why?  Because owners and executives are keeping more, not distributing more to their workforce.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

 

So again I say, if you're for that economic policy from your government, then you have no room to complain about a top-down governing approach.

Those who take the most of the risk deserve most of the profit. Again you are comparing apples and oranges with your analogy. It is completely flawed because a person owns a company, but the government shouldn’t own us. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, SocialCircle said:

Those who take the most of the risk deserve most of the profit. Again you are comparing apples and oranges with your analogy. It is completely flawed because a person owns a company, but the government shouldn’t own us. 

So the company owner should own you?  Because that's the logic you're using.

And again, no one is arguing that the owner shouldn't make the most.  Not one single time here have I said that.  But the idea of trickle down economics has born out to be a loser for the worker.  It's shown in over 40 years of data.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, SocialCircle said:

The answer is yes. The more money we make, the more successful (financially) we all are in our company. Our bonuses are based on our bottom-line. 

So can you please answer the other part, which is directly related to how trickle policy down works.  Did your company take a tax break and hire more folks or give raises?   If so, then you may have a case.  If not, then you don't at all.

[SocialCircle 570]

47 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

So can you please answer the other part, which is directly related to how trickle policy down works.  Did your company take a tax break and hire more folks or give raises?   If so, then you may have a case.  If not, then you don't at all.

The answer again is YES. We are bonused and receive raises on the bottom-line.

[SocialCircle 570]

49 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

So the company owner should own you?  Because that's the logic you're using.

And again, no one is arguing that the owner shouldn't make the most.  Not one single time here have I said that.  But the idea of trickle down economics has born out to be a loser for the worker.  It's shown in over 40 years of data.

It works. I have experienced it throughout my life. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, SocialCircle said:

It works. I have experienced it throughout my life. 

40 years of data across a much larger spectrum than you would suggest otherwise.

[SocialCircle 570]

5 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

40 years of data across a much larger spectrum than you would suggest otherwise.

Take your biased and manipulated info and stuff it and continue to be jealous of people who took great risks and got rewarded for their hard work and for laying it all on the line.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, SocialCircle said:

Take your biased and manipulated info and stuff it and continue to be jealous of people who took great risks and got rewarded for their hard work and for laying it all on the line.

Manipulated and biased?  Bro, it's from the Pew Research Center.  Not really a bastion of biased information.  It saddens me that you have a hand in the education of some young people if you think Pew Research offers biased or manipulated information.