Obviously how people assess Presidents and Candidates is highly subjective.
Because I don’t see Trump (outside of what comes out of his fingers and his mouth) as a particularly unusual president from the perspective of policy, I am less convinced that Harris would be anything other than a downgrade, especially considering she’s already flip flopping like a fish on health care, looking for (one assumes) some middle position that can garner her the support of both progressives and the larger Democratic electorate.
This behavior has the odor of Clintonian triangulation politics all over it. I suppose if it’s the Democrat’s turn in office, that’s not such a bad governance philosophy to have, since it pretty much guarantees that nothing radical will change in the economy.
And of course, she doesn’t seem to understand she’s running for POTUS, not absolute dictator:
That one 10 second clip, in my mind, totally disqualifies her as a serious politician, without even getting into her horrendous record as a prosecutor. To wit:
- She is leading people to believe that she has the power to change the tax code unilaterally. That’s just plain dishonest.
- No serious politician should be leading the electorate to think that the tax rate on 185,000 families (that’s the 1%) makes a whit of difference in their lives.
- Further, no serious politician should direct any specific tax policy towards such a small group of individuals. You don’t see anything like this in Europe, where the top rates are paid by half the country, not by the top 1%.
- The money that would be raised by increasing the top rate back to 39.6% from 35% is about 60–70 billion dollars. However, the spending plans she advocates would cost 3–4 TRILLION dollars. Raising that top rate covers less than 5% of the cost, and it’s a heinous lie to lead people to believe that just raising the top rate is going to cover the cost.
- Ditto for the corporate tax rate she alludes to. Prior to Trump, both Democrats and Republicans agreed that that rate needed to be lowered to increase international competitiveness AND decrease the incentive to outsource jobs overseas. Obama tried to pass a corporate tax cut and failed; economists from the most liberal to most conservative agreed that this was a good move. But she wants to roll it back, which benefits nobody, penalizes workers, and (again) she heinously deludes the voter that the money that was collected under the old corporate tax rate will pay for her spending plans.
One more global statement that applies to all Dem candidates: All of them are offering tons of “free stuff”, and playing loose with how we will pay for it. The far left, using Modern Monetary Theory as a backstop, are actually claiming that none of it has to be paid for, period; we’ll just “print” up the money, and there will be no blowback in dollar valuation.
Eventually, after the Convention, whoever the candidate is is going to have to Show Their Arithmetic. The Arithmetic will show everyone that in order to get “free” health care and “free” college” and whateverfuckallelse they want to give away for free to buy votes, taxes on the middle class are going to double OR TRIPLE. That’s what the middle class pays in Europe for all those bells and whistles; about triple what the middle class pays here, and we haven’t even discussed yet the fact that Europe uses a hefty national sales tax (VAT) on top of it all.
This is what an entirely different economic model looks like. TODAY, we are the highest paid people in the world (in terms of discretionary income against cost of living), but we have to manage our own retirement, health care, higher education, against that high level of income. TOMORROW (if these Dems are successful) we will no longer have to manage our own retirement, health care, higher education……but we won’t have nearly the discretionary income after taxes that we used to.
I don’t know what’s right or what’s better. What I DO know is that if you want to change our economic model, you should put all your cards on the table. You don’t say “oh, this will be so great, we’re going to give you all this STUFF and pay for it by (cloudy haze enters the room) well, sorta, kinda, raise taxes on the rich, corporations…..yea maybe something else, I don’t know, we’ll work it out……”. You state UP FRONT and say “here are the programs we want to start, here’s what we’ll think they’ll cost, and here’s where the money is going to come from” even if you’re tripling the middle class tax rate.
End rant. :-)