Do you vote with your wallet? (1 Viewer)

[The Commish]

Nope....fortunately, my father taught me many years ago that it's not wise to have your finances organized in such a way that the government can impact them greatly one way or the other. One of the best lessons he ever taught me...miss that dude every day!!

If the government so chose they could bend you over with your finances. They could institute a 90% income tax, 90% tax on retirement withdraws, 90% tax on capital gains, they could tax air if they wanted to. Just because you think the government can't affect your finances doesn't make it so. Not doing it and not having the ability to do it are not the same thing.

I guess you probably do know my personal situation better than I do. This place cracks me up sometimes

 

[Snotbubbles]

I vote with my wallet. Normally, the candidate that runs on lowering my taxes. This cycle I'll be voting with my wallet again, but this time the candidate that I think has the best solutions to inflation. I don't know if that will be Rep or Dem yet so I can't answer the poll.

If the argument is that inflation is caused largely by government spending money it doesn't have, perhaps constantly lowering taxes and thus depriving the government of money it needs isn't a wise tactic?

Counter argument: The government has too many programs it is funding and needs to reduce the size of the programs.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Nope....fortunately, my father taught me many years ago that it's not wise to have your finances organized in such a way that the government can impact them greatly one way or the other. One of the best lessons he ever taught me...miss that dude every day!!

If the government so chose they could bend you over with your finances. They could institute a 90% income tax, 90% tax on retirement withdraws, 90% tax on capital gains, they could tax air if they wanted to. Just because you think the government can't affect your finances doesn't make it so. Not doing it and not having the ability to do it are not the same thing.

I guess you probably do know my personal situation better than I do. This place cracks me up sometimes

I don't need to know your financial position, it's irrelevant. There isn't a financial position that would insulate you from the government coming for your money it if they wanted to. Heck, even if you were sitting on a boatload of cash, everyday inflation is eating away at your purchasing power.

 

[The Commish]

Nope....fortunately, my father taught me many years ago that it's not wise to have your finances organized in such a way that the government can impact them greatly one way or the other. One of the best lessons he ever taught me...miss that dude every day!!

If the government so chose they could bend you over with your finances. They could institute a 90% income tax, 90% tax on retirement withdraws, 90% tax on capital gains, they could tax air if they wanted to. Just because you think the government can't affect your finances doesn't make it so. Not doing it and not having the ability to do it are not the same thing.

I guess you probably do know my personal situation better than I do. This place cracks me up sometimes

I don't need to know your financial position, it's irrelevant. There isn't a financial position that would insulate you from the government coming for your money it if they wanted to. Heck, even if you were sitting on a boatload of cash, everyday inflation is eating away at your purchasing power.

Ok

 

[Stealthycat]

to be fair, I've not believed in anything much Democrats have supported in the past 20 years .... I vote GOP and could never imagine voting DNC again

IF a 3rd party would arise that held many of my views/beliefs I'd go to it quickly

 

[Rich Conway]

I vote with my wallet. Normally, the candidate that runs on lowering my taxes. This cycle I'll be voting with my wallet again, but this time the candidate that I think has the best solutions to inflation. I don't know if that will be Rep or Dem yet so I can't answer the poll.

If the argument is that inflation is caused largely by government spending money it doesn't have, perhaps constantly lowering taxes and thus depriving the government of money it needs isn't a wise tactic?

Counter argument: The government has too many programs it is funding and needs to reduce the size of the programs.

But what you wrote is that you vote for the candidate that runs on lowering taxes, not the candidate that runs on reducing spending. If neither candidate is going to reduce spending (and history seems to have proven that's the case), then voting for lower taxes is tantamount to voting for more inflation.

 

[BladeRunner]

No. But I am a one issue voter.

That being... "is the candidate Trump or an election denier"?

That's pretty much where I'm at.

I think I would phrase it as, I now vote anti GOP. When that party dies the death it deserves, I'll reevaluate.

I'll vote for any GOP candidate, if he/she is an anti-Trump nominee, vs Biden. If neither Trump nor Biden runs, then it's up in the air for me.

To answer the OPs question, I've never voted with my wallet and never will.

Wow. This is why the Republican party has gone bat **** crazy. There is no accountability.

Accountability in what?

I will try to put what I think Tommy is saying in a nicer, more digestible way: the more people vote strict D or R, the more politicians now they can do pretty much what they want.

As noted earlier, I’m a Dem. This is about not voting for Biden (or Trump). I’m done with voting for a) people In my parents’ age demographic, b) any of the abysmal choices we’ve had the past 2 cycles. (which would include Clinton)

@BladeRunner I hope you saw this and enjoy the comedy of TGunz suggesting that I’m a Republican.

I did.

Suggesting you being a Republican is like suggesting that TGunz is a Republican.

 

[Snotbubbles]

I vote with my wallet. Normally, the candidate that runs on lowering my taxes. This cycle I'll be voting with my wallet again, but this time the candidate that I think has the best solutions to inflation. I don't know if that will be Rep or Dem yet so I can't answer the poll.

If the argument is that inflation is caused largely by government spending money it doesn't have, perhaps constantly lowering taxes and thus depriving the government of money it needs isn't a wise tactic?

Counter argument: The government has too many programs it is funding and needs to reduce the size of the programs.

But what you wrote is that you vote for the candidate that runs on lowering taxes, not the candidate that runs on reducing spending. If neither candidate is going to reduce spending (and history seems to have proven that's the case), then voting for lower taxes is tantamount to voting for more inflation.

I don't disagree with what you wrote. No candidate has run on lowering the budget. What I said was I normally vote for the candidate that runs on lowering my taxes. If my option is high government spending and high taxes or high government spending and lower taxes, I'm voting for lower taxes. I don't care that it could possibly, eventually lead to inflation. Prior to 2020, the last time inflation got above 4% was 1991. So basically, every single year I've been eligible to vote, we haven't had inflation above 4%. So inflation has NEVER been a voting issue for me. Now we have high inflation, so now I'm voting for the candidate that has the best policies to lower inflation. I don't understand why this is so hard a concept for you to understand.

 

[Snotbubbles]

to be fair, I've not believed in anything much Democrats have supported in the past 20 years .... I vote GOP and could never imagine voting DNC again

IF a 3rd party would arise that held many of my views/beliefs I'd go to it quickly

I'm a registered Democrat, but I probably align closer to the Libertarian party. But I have yet to vote for a Libertarian candidate.

 

[Rich Conway]

I vote with my wallet. Normally, the candidate that runs on lowering my taxes. This cycle I'll be voting with my wallet again, but this time the candidate that I think has the best solutions to inflation. I don't know if that will be Rep or Dem yet so I can't answer the poll.

If the argument is that inflation is caused largely by government spending money it doesn't have, perhaps constantly lowering taxes and thus depriving the government of money it needs isn't a wise tactic?

Counter argument: The government has too many programs it is funding and needs to reduce the size of the programs.

But what you wrote is that you vote for the candidate that runs on lowering taxes, not the candidate that runs on reducing spending. If neither candidate is going to reduce spending (and history seems to have proven that's the case), then voting for lower taxes is tantamount to voting for more inflation.

I don't disagree with what you wrote. No candidate has run on lowering the budget. What I said was I normally vote for the candidate that runs on lowering my taxes. If my option is high government spending and high taxes or high government spending and lower taxes, I'm voting for lower taxes. I don't care that it could possibly, eventually lead to inflation. Prior to 2020, the last time inflation got above 4% was 1991. So basically, every single year I've been eligible to vote, we haven't had inflation above 4%. So inflation has NEVER been a voting issue for me. Now we have high inflation, so now I'm voting for the candidate that has the best policies to lower inflation. I don't understand why this is so hard a concept for you to understand.

Nothing about what I wrote should be this complicated for you. Voting to lower taxes causes higher inflation, the very thing you're now complaining about. Ergo, you have repeatedly voted for the thing that you're now voting against, and maybe that wasn't such a wise move.

 

[Snotbubbles]

I vote with my wallet. Normally, the candidate that runs on lowering my taxes. This cycle I'll be voting with my wallet again, but this time the candidate that I think has the best solutions to inflation. I don't know if that will be Rep or Dem yet so I can't answer the poll.

If the argument is that inflation is caused largely by government spending money it doesn't have, perhaps constantly lowering taxes and thus depriving the government of money it needs isn't a wise tactic?

Counter argument: The government has too many programs it is funding and needs to reduce the size of the programs.

But what you wrote is that you vote for the candidate that runs on lowering taxes, not the candidate that runs on reducing spending. If neither candidate is going to reduce spending (and history seems to have proven that's the case), then voting for lower taxes is tantamount to voting for more inflation.

I don't disagree with what you wrote. No candidate has run on lowering the budget. What I said was I normally vote for the candidate that runs on lowering my taxes. If my option is high government spending and high taxes or high government spending and lower taxes, I'm voting for lower taxes. I don't care that it could possibly, eventually lead to inflation. Prior to 2020, the last time inflation got above 4% was 1991. So basically, every single year I've been eligible to vote, we haven't had inflation above 4%. So inflation has NEVER been a voting issue for me. Now we have high inflation, so now I'm voting for the candidate that has the best policies to lower inflation. I don't understand why this is so hard a concept for you to understand.

Nothing about what I wrote should be this complicated for you. Voting to lower taxes causes higher inflation, the very thing you're now complaining about. Ergo, you have repeatedly voted for the thing that you're now voting against, and maybe that wasn't such a wise move.

Except it doesn't. I voted for lower taxes every year and every year inflation stayed below 4%. Lower taxes doesn't cause inflation.

 

[Rich Conway]

I vote with my wallet. Normally, the candidate that runs on lowering my taxes. This cycle I'll be voting with my wallet again, but this time the candidate that I think has the best solutions to inflation. I don't know if that will be Rep or Dem yet so I can't answer the poll.

If the argument is that inflation is caused largely by government spending money it doesn't have, perhaps constantly lowering taxes and thus depriving the government of money it needs isn't a wise tactic?

Counter argument: The government has too many programs it is funding and needs to reduce the size of the programs.

But what you wrote is that you vote for the candidate that runs on lowering taxes, not the candidate that runs on reducing spending. If neither candidate is going to reduce spending (and history seems to have proven that's the case), then voting for lower taxes is tantamount to voting for more inflation.

I don't disagree with what you wrote. No candidate has run on lowering the budget. What I said was I normally vote for the candidate that runs on lowering my taxes. If my option is high government spending and high taxes or high government spending and lower taxes, I'm voting for lower taxes. I don't care that it could possibly, eventually lead to inflation. Prior to 2020, the last time inflation got above 4% was 1991. So basically, every single year I've been eligible to vote, we haven't had inflation above 4%. So inflation has NEVER been a voting issue for me. Now we have high inflation, so now I'm voting for the candidate that has the best policies to lower inflation. I don't understand why this is so hard a concept for you to understand.

Nothing about what I wrote should be this complicated for you. Voting to lower taxes causes higher inflation, the very thing you're now complaining about. Ergo, you have repeatedly voted for the thing that you're now voting against, and maybe that wasn't such a wise move.

Except it doesn't. I voted for lower taxes every year and every year inflation stayed below 4%. Lower taxes doesn't cause inflation.

Government spending money it doesn't have causes inflation (granted, it is only one of many factors in the overall inflation cause). You agree with this statement, do you not? Lowering taxes while not lowering spending increases the amount of money government spends that it doesn't have. This should be self-evident. Government never lowers spending, ergo, lowering taxes causes inflation. Again, this isn't hard, you're just being obstinate for no reason.

 

[Snotbubbles]

I vote with my wallet. Normally, the candidate that runs on lowering my taxes. This cycle I'll be voting with my wallet again, but this time the candidate that I think has the best solutions to inflation. I don't know if that will be Rep or Dem yet so I can't answer the poll.

If the argument is that inflation is caused largely by government spending money it doesn't have, perhaps constantly lowering taxes and thus depriving the government of money it needs isn't a wise tactic?

Counter argument: The government has too many programs it is funding and needs to reduce the size of the programs.

But what you wrote is that you vote for the candidate that runs on lowering taxes, not the candidate that runs on reducing spending. If neither candidate is going to reduce spending (and history seems to have proven that's the case), then voting for lower taxes is tantamount to voting for more inflation.

I don't disagree with what you wrote. No candidate has run on lowering the budget. What I said was I normally vote for the candidate that runs on lowering my taxes. If my option is high government spending and high taxes or high government spending and lower taxes, I'm voting for lower taxes. I don't care that it could possibly, eventually lead to inflation. Prior to 2020, the last time inflation got above 4% was 1991. So basically, every single year I've been eligible to vote, we haven't had inflation above 4%. So inflation has NEVER been a voting issue for me. Now we have high inflation, so now I'm voting for the candidate that has the best policies to lower inflation. I don't understand why this is so hard a concept for you to understand.

Nothing about what I wrote should be this complicated for you. Voting to lower taxes causes higher inflation, the very thing you're now complaining about. Ergo, you have repeatedly voted for the thing that you're now voting against, and maybe that wasn't such a wise move.

Except it doesn't. I voted for lower taxes every year and every year inflation stayed below 4%. Lower taxes doesn't cause inflation.

Government spending money it doesn't have causes inflation (granted, it is only one of many factors in the overall inflation cause). You agree with this statement, do you not? Lowering taxes while not lowering spending increases the amount of money government spends that it doesn't have. This should be self-evident. Government never lowers spending, ergo, lowering taxes causes inflation. Again, this isn't hard, you're just being obstinate for no reason.

I never based my vote on higher government spending. I based my vote on lower taxes. You are trying to make a pointless, point. It's like you are arguing for the sake of arguing. You are arguing that government spending causes inflation. I agree with you. Lower taxes does not cause inflation, spending does. That the government spends more than it takes in sounds like a spending problem, not a tax problem. When I run up my credit card and I can't pay the balance, I don't blame it on my paycheck, I blame it on my spending.

 

[sho nuff]

I never based my vote on higher government spending. I based my vote on lower taxes. You are trying to make a pointless, point. It's like you are arguing for the sake of arguing. You are arguing that government spending causes inflation. I agree with you. Lower taxes does not cause inflation, spending does. That the government spends more than it takes in sounds like a spending problem, not a tax problem. When I run up my credit card and I can't pay the balance, I don't blame it on my paycheck, I blame it on my spending.

I have to question then why are you a registered democrat if you base y our vote on lower taxes? Seems in conflict as, at least in recent history 20+ years or so, Democrats have not exactly been the party for lowering taxes.

 

[Rich Conway]

I never based my vote on higher government spending. I based my vote on lower taxes. You are trying to make a pointless, point. It's like you are arguing for the sake of arguing. You are arguing that government spending causes inflation. I agree with you. Lower taxes does not cause inflation, spending does. That the government spends more than it takes in sounds like a spending problem, not a tax problem. When I run up my credit card and I can't pay the balance, I don't blame it on my paycheck, I blame it on my spending.

You're now suggesting that government spending increases inflation, regardless of government revenue? That is, a balanced budget with no deficit at all would increase inflation? Not buying it.

 

[Stealthycat]

Nothing about what I wrote should be this complicated for you. Voting to lower taxes causes higher inflation, the very thing you're now complaining about. Ergo, you have repeatedly voted for the thing that you're now voting against, and maybe that wasn't such a wise move.

so higher taxes = lower inflation ?

so before Trump changed the taxation we had higher inflation ?

 

[Desert_Power]

Lowering taxes, all else equal, definitely increases inflation.

 

[FairWarning]

Lowering taxes, all else equal, definitely increases inflation.

Right, so they have to spend less. Why is there global inflation? A big factor was spending during COVID shutdowns.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Fortunately in my adult life voting for Democrats has also meant I get to vote for my wallet. They are the party of fiscal responsibility and the macro economy in general performs better under Democratic leadership.

 

[Snotbubbles]

I never based my vote on higher government spending. I based my vote on lower taxes. You are trying to make a pointless, point. It's like you are arguing for the sake of arguing. You are arguing that government spending causes inflation. I agree with you. Lower taxes does not cause inflation, spending does. That the government spends more than it takes in sounds like a spending problem, not a tax problem. When I run up my credit card and I can't pay the balance, I don't blame it on my paycheck, I blame it on my spending.

You're now suggesting that government spending increases inflation, regardless of government revenue? That is, a balanced budget with no deficit at all would increase inflation? Not buying it.

I'm arguing no such thing. I'm saying lower taxes has zero impact on inflation. When I voted from 1992 until 2020, I voted for the person who wanted to lower my taxes. Now in 2022, we have high inflation, something we haven't had since 1991 (a year before I was eligible to vote). So this election, I'm voting on the person who has the best plan to tackle inflation. You keep trying to conflate spending and revenue. I'm not doing that.

 

[tommyGunZ]

No. But I am a one issue voter.

That being... "is the candidate Trump or an election denier"?

That's pretty much where I'm at.

I think I would phrase it as, I now vote anti GOP. When that party dies the death it deserves, I'll reevaluate.

I'll vote for any GOP candidate, if he/she is an anti-Trump nominee, vs Biden. If neither Trump nor Biden runs, then it's up in the air for me.

To answer the OPs question, I've never voted with my wallet and never will.

Wow. This is why the Republican party has gone bat **** crazy. There is no accountability.

Huh? I’m a Democrat. Biden shouldn’t be the nominee — he’s way too old. I’m done voting for Boomers.

Biden is not my first choice in 2024. He was not my first choice in 2020.

I never suggested you were a Republican. I stated that your willingness to vote for a Republican in 2024 if Biden is the nominee is not holding Republicans accountable. It’s absolutely true. Why should they change if voters like you are willing to vote for them?

 

[Rich Conway]

I never based my vote on higher government spending. I based my vote on lower taxes. You are trying to make a pointless, point. It's like you are arguing for the sake of arguing. You are arguing that government spending causes inflation. I agree with you. Lower taxes does not cause inflation, spending does. That the government spends more than it takes in sounds like a spending problem, not a tax problem. When I run up my credit card and I can't pay the balance, I don't blame it on my paycheck, I blame it on my spending.

You're now suggesting that government spending increases inflation, regardless of government revenue? That is, a balanced budget with no deficit at all would increase inflation? Not buying it.

I'm arguing no such thing. I'm saying lower taxes has zero impact on inflation. When I voted from 1992 until 2020, I voted for the person who wanted to lower my taxes. Now in 2022, we have high inflation, something we haven't had since 1991 (a year before I was eligible to vote). So this election, I'm voting on the person who has the best plan to tackle inflation. You keep trying to conflate spending and revenue. I'm not doing that.

Let's try this in a simpler fashion.

As @Desert_Power put it better than I did, does lowering taxes, all else being equal, cause inflation?

 

[The Commish]

Lowering taxes, all else equal, definitely increases inflation.

Right, so they have to spend less. Why is there global inflation? A big factor was spending during COVID shutdowns.

The global aspect was driven by COVID for sure, but more on the supply/demand line than the spending line. In this country, I'd agree, dumping tons of money into our economy when it wasn't necessary in 2018-2020 then dumping even MORE in when it was sorta necessary for pandemic reasons again in 2020 caused problems. Continuing that action in extending the unemployment things in 2021 had an effect too.

 

[FairWarning]

Lowering taxes, all else equal, definitely increases inflation.

Right, so they have to spend less. Why is there global inflation? A big factor was spending during COVID shutdowns.

The global aspect was driven by COVID for sure, but more on the supply/demand line than the spending line. In this country, I'd agree, dumping tons of money into our economy when it wasn't necessary in 2018-2020 then dumping even MORE in when it was sorta necessary for pandemic reasons again in 2020 caused problems. Continuing that action in extending the unemployment things in 2021 had an effect too.

I’ll have to read up on how we got out of it in the early 80s. It may be harder today as our political climate is totally different because of partisan politics.

 

[Desert_Power]

Lowering taxes, all else equal, definitely increases inflation.

Right, so they have to spend less. Why is there global inflation? A big factor was spending during COVID shutdowns.

Granting the premise that gov't spending during COVID is a big driver of inflation today, the question becomes what to do about it. You can spend less in the future sure. That doesn't really help your current problem, but perhaps increases the credibility inflation will come down in the future (not sure that is needed) You could also pull that cash back out of the economy by increasing taxes. Not just on the rich like the Democrats try, but across the board. Fed keeps saying the labor market is too strong, why not increase payroll taxes now?

Just riffing as this policy proposal would be DOA in DC.

 

[The Commish]

Lowering taxes, all else equal, definitely increases inflation.

Right, so they have to spend less. Why is there global inflation? A big factor was spending during COVID shutdowns.

The global aspect was driven by COVID for sure, but more on the supply/demand line than the spending line. In this country, I'd agree, dumping tons of money into our economy when it wasn't necessary in 2018-2020 then dumping even MORE in when it was sorta necessary for pandemic reasons again in 2020 caused problems. Continuing that action in extending the unemployment things in 2021 had an effect too.

I’ll have to read up on how we got out of it in the early 80s. It may be harder today as our political climate is totally different because of partisan politics.

There's one way financially......limit the amount of money in the economy. The factors of the 80s were different than the ones here, but the 80s problem was addressed with strict monetary policy putting us in a recession.

 

[Desert_Power]

Lowering taxes, all else equal, definitely increases inflation.

Right, so they have to spend less. Why is there global inflation? A big factor was spending during COVID shutdowns.

The global aspect was driven by COVID for sure, but more on the supply/demand line than the spending line. In this country, I'd agree, dumping tons of money into our economy when it wasn't necessary in 2018-2020 then dumping even MORE in when it was sorta necessary for pandemic reasons again in 2020 caused problems. Continuing that action in extending the unemployment things in 2021 had an effect too.

I’ll have to read up on how we got out of it in the early 80s. It may be harder today as our political climate is totally different because of partisan politics.

There's one way financially......limit the amount of money in the economy. The factors of the 80s were different than the ones here, but the 80s problem was addressed with strict monetary policy putting us in a recession.

There were also a lot of tax policy changes outlined here. I know @Bottomfeeder Sports likes to talk about this period.

Personally, I agree the Fed policy of Volcker was a bigger factor. Raising rates so rapidly did create space for Reagan to lower rates Also took a double dip recession to work through all this.

I like the analouge of post WW2 the best to the Covid situation. None of us were really around to experience that though.

 

[FairWarning]

We could do what the Ukrainian leader is doing - plead to the world for money to put off the deficit.

 

[Snotbubbles]

I never based my vote on higher government spending. I based my vote on lower taxes. You are trying to make a pointless, point. It's like you are arguing for the sake of arguing. You are arguing that government spending causes inflation. I agree with you. Lower taxes does not cause inflation, spending does. That the government spends more than it takes in sounds like a spending problem, not a tax problem. When I run up my credit card and I can't pay the balance, I don't blame it on my paycheck, I blame it on my spending.

You're now suggesting that government spending increases inflation, regardless of government revenue? That is, a balanced budget with no deficit at all would increase inflation? Not buying it.

I'm arguing no such thing. I'm saying lower taxes has zero impact on inflation. When I voted from 1992 until 2020, I voted for the person who wanted to lower my taxes. Now in 2022, we have high inflation, something we haven't had since 1991 (a year before I was eligible to vote). So this election, I'm voting on the person who has the best plan to tackle inflation. You keep trying to conflate spending and revenue. I'm not doing that.

Let's try this in a simpler fashion.

As @Desert_Power put it better than I did, does lowering taxes, all else being equal, cause inflation?

Taxes are a zero sum game. Inflation is caused by too many dollars going to too few goods. When Party A pays $1 in taxes to Party B it doesn't affect the ability of that dollar being spent, it only shifts who has to ability to spend it. So yes, a higher tax on me might effect my ability to spend that $1 but increases the party to whom I pay the taxes to ability to spend that $1 by the same amount that my spending power decreases. So the net affect of taxes is zero with respect to inflation.

If you want to see something things that could affects inflation, look at quantitative easing, supply chains, etc.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

No. But I am a one issue voter.

That being... "is the candidate Trump or an election denier"?

That's pretty much where I'm at.

I think I would phrase it as, I now vote anti GOP. When that party dies the death it deserves, I'll reevaluate.

I'll vote for any GOP candidate, if he/she is an anti-Trump nominee, vs Biden. If neither Trump nor Biden runs, then it's up in the air for me.

To answer the OPs question, I've never voted with my wallet and never will.

Wow. This is why the Republican party has gone bat **** crazy. There is no accountability.

Huh? I’m a Democrat. Biden shouldn’t be the nominee — he’s way too old. I’m done voting for Boomers.

Biden is not my first choice in 2024. He was not my first choice in 2020.

I never suggested you were a Republican. I stated that your willingness to vote for a Republican in 2024 if Biden is the nominee is not holding Republicans accountable. It’s absolutely true. Why should they change if voters like you are willing to vote for them?

I’m holding the Dems accountable. Why aren’t you?

 

[tommyGunZ]

No. But I am a one issue voter.

That being... "is the candidate Trump or an election denier"?

That's pretty much where I'm at.

I think I would phrase it as, I now vote anti GOP. When that party dies the death it deserves, I'll reevaluate.

I'll vote for any GOP candidate, if he/she is an anti-Trump nominee, vs Biden. If neither Trump nor Biden runs, then it's up in the air for me.

To answer the OPs question, I've never voted with my wallet and never will.

Wow. This is why the Republican party has gone bat **** crazy. There is no accountability.

Huh? I’m a Democrat. Biden shouldn’t be the nominee — he’s way too old. I’m done voting for Boomers.

Biden is not my first choice in 2024. He was not my first choice in 2020.

I never suggested you were a Republican. I stated that your willingness to vote for a Republican in 2024 if Biden is the nominee is not holding Republicans accountable. It’s absolutely true. Why should they change if voters like you are willing to vote for them?

I’m holding the Dems accountable. Why aren’t you?

Accountable for what? A nominee who you agree with 95% on policy but think is too old? So you throw your vote to the anti- democracy, semi-fascists on the right?

That’s not accountability, that’s absurdity. And it hurts because you know better.

 

[Rich Conway]

I never based my vote on higher government spending. I based my vote on lower taxes. You are trying to make a pointless, point. It's like you are arguing for the sake of arguing. You are arguing that government spending causes inflation. I agree with you. Lower taxes does not cause inflation, spending does. That the government spends more than it takes in sounds like a spending problem, not a tax problem. When I run up my credit card and I can't pay the balance, I don't blame it on my paycheck, I blame it on my spending.

You're now suggesting that government spending increases inflation, regardless of government revenue? That is, a balanced budget with no deficit at all would increase inflation? Not buying it.

I'm arguing no such thing. I'm saying lower taxes has zero impact on inflation. When I voted from 1992 until 2020, I voted for the person who wanted to lower my taxes. Now in 2022, we have high inflation, something we haven't had since 1991 (a year before I was eligible to vote). So this election, I'm voting on the person who has the best plan to tackle inflation. You keep trying to conflate spending and revenue. I'm not doing that.

Let's try this in a simpler fashion.

As @Desert_Power put it better than I did, does lowering taxes, all else being equal, cause inflation?

Taxes are a zero sum game. Inflation is caused by too many dollars going to too few goods. When Party A pays $1 in taxes to Party B it doesn't affect the ability of that dollar being spent, it only shifts who has to ability to spend it. So yes, a higher tax on me might effect my ability to spend that $1 but increases the party to whom I pay the taxes to ability to spend that $1 by the same amount that my spending power decreases. So the net affect of taxes is zero with respect to inflation.

If you want to see something things that could affects inflation, look at quantitative easing, supply chains, etc.

You're missing the "all else equal" part. Government spending = all else. If you want to make the argument that government spending money it doesn't have increases inflation (and you make this argument daily in lots of threads), then you are simultaneously making the argument that lowering taxes without corresponding reduction in spending increases inflation. This is pretty basic Econ 102 stuff (assuming Econ 101 is Intro to Micro and Econ 102 is Intro to Macro, as it was at my school).

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

There were also a lot of tax policy changes outlined here. I know @Bottomfeeder Sports likes to talk about this period.

Personally, I agree the Fed policy of Volcker was a bigger factor. Raising rates so rapidly did create space for Reagan to lower rates Also took a double dip recession to work through all this.

I like the analouge of post WW2 the best to the Covid situation. None of us were really around to experience that though.

Carter inherited a mess when he took office in 1977. He entered office with inflation climbing consistently for over a decade. Unemployment was high. Interest rates were high (at least from our perspective) but had been held low to bolster the economy. There were wage and price controls left over from Nixon. The first real wave of globalization as Japan and Germany manufacturing might started hitting our shores. And there was the aftermath of the first energy crisis. Carter also fought back on the Great Society believing that America had reached "limits" on what it could do. That helped cripple him in his party. He also butted heads with the Fed Chairmen.

All that being said the economy was doing pretty well under Carter up until things started falling apart such by the summer of '79 it all collapsed on Carter. Early on Carter had announced his choice to replace the Fed chair when the term expired in 78. That didn't go over to well, but Carter's choice became the Fed chair. Because of both this reaction and the policies implemented by the Fed (and everything else already going on) the dollar's value started to nosedive. About a year later when everything was falling apart Carter more or less was forced to find a way to change the Fed Chair. He did this by moving him to Treasury Secretary. This created a panic in and of itself and it is out of this panic that Carter gave up any real hopes of re-election with the appointment of Paul Volker. Everything changed from that moment on. It would be a few months, but Volker would raise interest rates to levels that you forty-year-olds and under would not grasp. That was the harsh medicine that couldn't be sugar coated and the country entered a recession. By the fall of '80, just before the election there was some sprinkling of good news on the economy and some renewed, but false hope for Carter's reelection.

Reagan has a 51% election win which seems close until you realize that there was a third (7%) and even a fourth candidate (1%) driving Carter down to 41%. That was enough to declare a mandate and between his coattails taking the Senate and the boll weevil Democrats in the House, Reagan had the votes to get his tax cuts. This was a disaster for two reasons. First as David Stockman describes it the GOP congressmen took the opportunity to hang every long-standing wish onto the bill like "ornaments on a Christmas tree". The result being a lack of cohesion or focus with the tax cut bill itself and the companion spending bills to come. The other was that investors didn't buy the math (for good reasons) and fearing an already expensive market for loans would get worse they helped plunge the economy back into recession. The White House had hoped that the Fed would see the "balancing of the budget" as a reason to loosen up money, but instead these tax cuts added another year to everything.

What happened a year later? The largest tax hike ever up to that point. And the promise of more to come. Shortly after the fed started relaxing the interest rates. Within six months the Reagan miracle was upon us. And a decade plus of mostly good economies. One of the great footnotes of the time is that while Reagan's staff complained about the monetary policy and how it was ruining their fiscal policies, Reagan wasn't really one of them.

There are other differences between Reagan and Carter that contribute also. For one Carter was sluggish with change and Reagan not so much with some of the energy price controls being the first thing Reagan executive ordered out of existence. There was also that idea of "limits". Carter acted within those "limits" which were kind of self-imposed belief system and I think part of Reagan's enduring greatness was scoffing at such limits.

So, I'm sure that I flubbed a detail or two and there are things that reasonable people can disagree on in the little bit on analysis mixed in with the basic history, but I think this is mostly a fair and accurate summary of the period. At least in a thumbnail summary. It comes mostly from living it, from being briefly an economic student during the period (spring of '83) - didn't last, and from David Stockman's "The Triumph Politics" where after spending the first section of the book trashing "my side" he went on with "doom and gloom" view of what he was a part of in those first few tax and spending bills. Some of it held up to time, some of it hasn't and it was never kind to "my side" but still interesting enough to have stuck with me.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

As @Desert_Power put it better than I did, does lowering taxes, all else being equal, cause inflation?

Until sometime in the '90s no one argued otherwise. But then something happened such that now some do.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I’m holding the Dems accountable. Why aren’t you?

What did the democrats do, or not do that they deserve to be punished?

 

[Alex P Keaton]

No. But I am a one issue voter.

That being... "is the candidate Trump or an election denier"?

That's pretty much where I'm at.

I think I would phrase it as, I now vote anti GOP. When that party dies the death it deserves, I'll reevaluate.

I'll vote for any GOP candidate, if he/she is an anti-Trump nominee, vs Biden. If neither Trump nor Biden runs, then it's up in the air for me.

To answer the OPs question, I've never voted with my wallet and never will.

Wow. This is why the Republican party has gone bat **** crazy. There is no accountability.

Huh? I’m a Democrat. Biden shouldn’t be the nominee — he’s way too old. I’m done voting for Boomers.

Biden is not my first choice in 2024. He was not my first choice in 2020.

I never suggested you were a Republican. I stated that your willingness to vote for a Republican in 2024 if Biden is the nominee is not holding Republicans accountable. It’s absolutely true. Why should they change if voters like you are willing to vote for them?

I’m holding the Dems accountable. Why aren’t you?

Accountable for what? A nominee who you agree with 95% on policy but think is too old? So you throw your vote to the anti- democracy, semi-fascists on the right?

That’s not accountability, that’s absurdity. And it hurts because you know better.

Biden is terrible. End sentence.

I already explained that the Republican would have to be anti-Trump. Which means anti everything Trump stands for. But you know better too.

I’m done voting for old buffoons. Period. Should I vote 3rd party? Maybe. But that doesn’t punish the Dems enough for nominating a buffoon with a history of ineptitude, cronyism, misogyny and racism.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

But that doesn’t punish the Dems enough for nominating a buffoon with a history of ineptitude, cronyism, misogyny and racism.

Democrats should be punished for giving to much pull to Southern Democrats in the presidential primary system who tend to be moderates and even conservatives? I'd be happy if this actually forced change.

 

[Mile High]

But that doesn’t punish the Dems enough for nominating a buffoon with a history of ineptitude, cronyism, misogyny and racism.

Democrats should be punished for giving to much pull to Southern Democrats in the presidential primary system who tend to be moderates and even conservatives? I'd be happy if this actually forced change.

Exactly. In states they don't even win.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

But that doesn’t punish the Dems enough for nominating a buffoon with a history of ineptitude, cronyism, misogyny and racism.

Democrats should be punished for giving to much pull to Southern Democrats in the presidential primary system who tend to be moderates and even conservatives? I'd be happy if this actually forced change.

No. They should be punished for nominating a senile, hair-sniffing guy with a history of pandering to racists.

 

[Shula-holic]

But that doesn’t punish the Dems enough for nominating a buffoon with a history of ineptitude, cronyism, misogyny and racism.

Democrats should be punished for giving to much pull to Southern Democrats in the presidential primary system who tend to be moderates and even conservatives? I'd be happy if this actually forced change.

Sounds like you have a problem with Rep Clyburn then. He's the one who saved Joe Biden's campaign. Without him helping him in SC, he wasn't going to make it out of that state.

 

[MAC_32]

But that doesn’t punish the Dems enough for nominating a buffoon with a history of ineptitude, cronyism, misogyny and racism.

Democrats should be punished for giving to much pull to Southern Democrats in the presidential primary system who tend to be moderates and even conservatives? I'd be happy if this actually forced change.

Sounds like you have a problem with Rep Clyburn then. He's the one who saved Joe Biden's campaign. Without him helping him in SC, he wasn't going to make it out of that state.

Of course.

 

[lazyike]

I could say no but since Republicans don't mind seeing billion dollar corporations pay no tax and giving tax breaks to billionaires I will vote Democrat. Never used to vote that way. But the primary reason I will cast my vote blue will be to vote against election deniers and the Trump GOP party who are a threat to our democracy.

 

[FairWarning]

I feel like a bad guy after reading the above post .

 

[The Dude]

Have we ever discussed that inflation is hugely from gas companies? While the gas prices soared, gas companies were recording record profits earlier in the year. Not sure about recent quarter.

So gas prices were going up at the whim of big oil - not because gas was getting more expensive in the supply chain. And the gas prices screwed the economy across the board.

Biden attempted to do something about it - and the GOP said no - cuz they don't care about how it affects families - they just care that it tips the scales in midterms and presidential.

 

[Philo Beddoe]

Based off the latest Harvard / Harris national poll - Most important issues facing the country:

37% Inflation
29% Economy
23% Immigration

Regarding the question what issues do you think GOP is focused on?

37% Immigration
24% Inflation
21% Economy

When asked whatissues are Dems focused on?

27% Jan 6
25% Women's rights
23% Climate Change

Voters say Dems are most focused on Jan 6 which ranked as the 19th most important issue facing the country. Then women's rights which ranked 5th. Then Climate which ranked 8th. Meanwhile, the three issues people see GOP as most focused on rank 1, 2, and 3

On all three of the top issues facing the country, people said they were more likely to vote for GOP on those issues

Inflation: GOP+12
Crime: GOP+12
Immigration: GOP+11

64% say that rising crime is "the fault of woke politicians." A majority, 52%, of DEMOCRATS say rising crime is "the fault of woke politicians"

You can read the rest of it here -

https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/HHP_Oct2022_KeyResults.pdf

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Based off the latest Harvard / Harris national poll - Most important issues facing the country:

37% Inflation
29% Economy
23% Immigration

Regarding the question what issues do you think GOP is focused on?

37% Immigration
24% Inflation
21% Economy

When asked whatissues are Dems focused on?

27% Jan 6
25% Women's rights
23% Climate Change

Voters say Dems are most focused on Jan 6 which ranked as the 19th most important issue facing the country. Then women's rights which ranked 5th. Then Climate which ranked 8th. Meanwhile, the three issues people see GOP as most focused on rank 1, 2, and 3

On all three of the top issues facing the country, people said they were more likely to vote for GOP on those issues

Inflation: GOP+12
Crime: GOP+12
Immigration: GOP+11

64% say that rising crime is "the fault of woke politicians." A majority, 52%, of DEMOCRATS say rising crime is "the fault of woke politicians"

You can read the rest of it here -

https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/HHP_Oct2022_KeyResults.pdf

Not really a surprise. Seems like the Dems should get crushed in the mid terms. The R's would have to be historically inept to screw this up.

 

[the moops]

I never based my vote on higher government spending. I based my vote on lower taxes. You are trying to make a pointless, point. It's like you are arguing for the sake of arguing. You are arguing that government spending causes inflation. I agree with you. Lower taxes does not cause inflation, spending does. That the government spends more than it takes in sounds like a spending problem, not a tax problem. When I run up my credit card and I can't pay the balance, I don't blame it on my paycheck, I blame it on my spending.

I have to question then why are you a registered democrat if you base y our vote on lower taxes? Seems in conflict as, at least in recent history 20+ years or so, Democrats have not exactly been the party for lowering taxes.

Have to agree with you here. Snot claims to be a registered democrat who doesn't really agree with many of their policies.

 

[Mile High]

Based off the latest Harvard / Harris national poll - Most important issues facing the country:

37% Inflation
29% Economy
23% Immigration

Regarding the question what issues do you think GOP is focused on?

37% Immigration
24% Inflation
21% Economy

When asked whatissues are Dems focused on?

27% Jan 6
25% Women's rights
23% Climate Change

Voters say Dems are most focused on Jan 6 which ranked as the 19th most important issue facing the country. Then women's rights which ranked 5th. Then Climate which ranked 8th. Meanwhile, the three issues people see GOP as most focused on rank 1, 2, and 3

On all three of the top issues facing the country, people said they were more likely to vote for GOP on those issues

Inflation: GOP+12
Crime: GOP+12
Immigration: GOP+11

64% say that rising crime is "the fault of woke politicians." A majority, 52%, of DEMOCRATS say rising crime is "the fault of woke politicians"

You can read the rest of it here -

https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/HHP_Oct2022_KeyResults.pdf

Not really a surprise. Seems like the Dems should get crushed in the mid terms. The R's would have to be historically inept to screw this up.

Based off the latest Harvard / Harris national poll - Most important issues facing the country:

37% Inflation
29% Economy
23% Immigration

Regarding the question what issues do you think GOP is focused on?

37% Immigration
24% Inflation
21% Economy

When asked whatissues are Dems focused on?

27% Jan 6
25% Women's rights
23% Climate Change

Voters say Dems are most focused on Jan 6 which ranked as the 19th most important issue facing the country. Then women's rights which ranked 5th. Then Climate which ranked 8th. Meanwhile, the three issues people see GOP as most focused on rank 1, 2, and 3

On all three of the top issues facing the country, people said they were more likely to vote for GOP on those issues

Inflation: GOP+12
Crime: GOP+12
Immigration: GOP+11

64% say that rising crime is "the fault of woke politicians." A majority, 52%, of DEMOCRATS say rising crime is "the fault of woke politicians"

You can read the rest of it here -

https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/HHP_Oct2022_KeyResults.pdf

Not really a surprise. Seems like the Dems should get crushed in the mid terms. The R's would have to be historically inept to screw this up.

I want the Republicans to win the house before 2024. Get them on record about putting up or shutting up on these issues. My guess is they have no answers and will offer nothing.